Lying for Jesus

The Roe v. Wade opinion leak has exposed another example of how far Conservative Christians have moved from the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was killed for challenging the Jewish Temple's power to dictate to Jews how they must think and behave.  Jesus rejected that authority, preaching each individual must find God for themselves, and the Temple leaders had no special authority to set up rules for life.

I have never seen a single word in the Bible attributed to Jesus which suggested he thought God had delegated the right to prejudge sin to prevent it.  The parable of the good Samaritan says absolutely nothing about stopping the wrongful attack, or punishing the bad guys.  It was all about helping the victim - regardless of his religion. Jesus's message throughout his ministry was focused on teaching people to answer only to God and treat those around us with love, respect and honesty.  Government is a different world than religious belief.

That's not the MO of modern Christian Conservatives.  Achieving their agenda trumps respect, honesty and letting each person develop their own relationship with God. 

Justice Clarence Thomas downplays his Christian conservativism to maintain the appearance of neutrality but now that abortion is before the court the judicial tradition that a judge must avoid "even the appearance of impropriety" to maintain faith in the judicial system is an irritation to be ignored.  He waves off the notion he should recuse himself from the deliberations on Roe v. Wade even though he has been an active participant in Christian Conservative events, and his wife has been a vociferous advocate for overturning Roe v. Wade.  His mind is not open to other views.  The apparent impropriety is overwhelming. 

Justice Kavanaugh, about 4 years ago when he sought to get appointed to the Supreme Court, sat before a Senate Committee under oath and in direct response to a question about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, said that the case was "settled law".  He committed a Lawyers lie, lying in an indirect and deliberate manner to give the impression he was answering no.  Now he joins the majority in proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade.  He lied to get the job so he could enforce Christian Conservative sharia law.

Both seem to be of the view God has given him the special right to pre judge the sins of others.  If they need to lie to achieve their objective, the ends justify the means.

The Republican party Christian wing has become so sure they know it all, so disdainful of any view other than what's dictated from Christian Conservative church pulpits, that political corruption in the name of Jesus is now acceptable - from voter suppression to lying to get on the Supreme Court, to "believing" the January 6 invasion of the Capitol Building was justified because the election was stolen by evil Democrats.

In the 1970's the Democratic Party that had controlled Congress for decades let their success lull them into overlooking corruption in their biggest voting bloc, labor unions.  The public didn't overlook it and that opened the door for Ronald Reagan to begin 42 years of Republican dominance. 

Will the Conservative Republican current tolerance of corruption lead the public to reject them?  I have faith in the American people so I hope so.  If not we are on our way to becoming like those Jewish temple leaders of Jesus's time, or fake democracy's like Russia or China in our time, who value power and the ability to crush dissent from the ideas they preach, over the soft power of fairness and tolerance.

These Days a Christian Republican is an Oxymoron

Defintion of Oxymoron - where contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Definition of Christian - a person who follows the teachings of Jesus.

The history of Christianity (like many religions) is conflict between two basic approaches to God.

1.  Those who think how we should live is dictated by God, and they know what that way of living is and are therefore authorized by God to enforce their belief.

2.  Those who think each person should find God, and be tolerant of the path other people chose in their life.

The first notion of God is represented in Leviticus in the Bible's Old Testament.  No reported words of Jesus support this first approach to God, and Jesus's Sermon on the Mount was an explicit rejection of this first notion of God.  Jesus was ultimately crucified because those who espouse this first view of God believed he was comitting heresy in rejecting their authority to dictate God's law.  Virtually every word reported to have been spoken by Jesus fits comfortably in the second view, that we must find God as individuals and our duty is to be tolerant, compassionate and kind towards others.

Which view is consistent with Republican party ideology?

Since the 1980's an alliance between many Christians and the Republican party has produced Republican policy dominance.  When one looks back on what Republican's have done with their power over the last 40 years it is apparent all they ultimately care about is tax cuts for the very rich.   Every single time the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, they cut taxes on the rich.  To get elected they also have vilified gays, immigrants, people fearful of an unwanted pregnancy and once their tax cuts were in place made efforts to create laws to impact those folks.   But only after the rich political donors have been mollified.  

What did Jesus think of taking care of rich folks?   In Matthew 19:24 he is quoted as saying "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"  He saw fundemental contradictions between the behaviors that make one rich and the values he promoted.  

What did Jesus think of the powerful being the only conduit to God?  The idea of using the power of the state to vilify or make illegal individual behaviors that have no impact of their fellow citizens is simply rehashing the notions in Leviticus that Jesus's rejected.

A compassionate Christian would value affordable and compassionate healthcare that is available to all.  But Republican's for 100 years have believed the best healthcare comes from folks seeking maximum profit, and if you can't afford it you don't deserve it.  As a result the US, the economic leader of the world, spends twice as much per person on healthcare, with statistically mediocre results - people in some dirt poor dictatorships have lower infant mortality rates and live longer.  When President Obama finally created a universal health care system, it was only after compromises that weakened its effectiveness, and it was then used to villify "Obamacare".  It became a talking point as they sought (successfully) to regain control of goverment.  They were successful and (of course) Donald Trump immediately cut taxes on the wealthy.

A compassionate Republican would want a tax law that produced a country that lifted everybody up.  We had that law from WW II until the early 1980's, we paid down the debt from World War II even as our economy grew consistently (an average of near 3% per year) and wealth was spread broadly across society.  But when Ronald Reagan bought into an Ivory tower notion that cutting taxes on the wealthiest would build a better economy the countries fortunes reversed course.  Tax cuts became the centerpiece of the Republican exercise of political power.  

In the early 1980's when Ronald Reagan started cutting taxes the National debt was at about 30% of GDP, down from a high of 116% of GDP at the end of World War II.  The National debt has gone up every year since and now is about 140% of GDP, by far the highest is has been in our countries history.   At the same time the super rich have attained unprecendented levels of wealth even as the numbers of people living an the margins of society, or destitute, grows each day.

Political activism has turned Conservative christians into the reincarnation of the Temple leaders who implored the Romans to crucify Jesus for challenging the Temple's right to dictate how people behave, and our country has been financially and morally weakened by their activities.

 

 

We Need a Worldwide Organization of Democratic States

 The last 100 years have demonstrated that simply creating a democracy is not enough.   Without strong education systems, informed voters and economic fairness democracies can be converted into a sham democracy where there are elections but one party or person controls who can run for election, and often manufacturers pretexts to jail the most popular opposition leaders.  A despot in a sham democracy may then look for pretexts to engage in good old fashioned empire building (as we see Vladimir Putin doing now in Ukraine and as China theatens to do with Taiwan).

The last century has also demonstrated that free democracy's tend to be much more productive and economically stable, so in the long run Democracies are economically stronger countries than despotic regimes or sham democracies.

The United Nations is a solution from the pre-connected world that has proved a weak and often useless organization in forwarding democracy across the globe because it includes a lot of countries controlled by strongmen who do not want to be answerable to their people.  NATO, another solution from the per-connected world, also has been incapable to effectively addressing aggression against non-member Democratic states.

We need to create a new organization, an organization of Democratic States.  

The organization should set up objective criteria for membership to insure verified free elections where all adults citizens can vote and all those who want to can run for office.  Any country that qualifies and is admitted will then be part of a organization wide free trade zone, and an organization wide mutual defense pact.  Fake democracy's or outright despots who want to bully a smaller democracy will face a united world democratic community.

Any country that moves away from being a free democracy should be expelled.

The history of the world is of a world run by Darwinism, the strongest and most brutal often dominate.  Despots believe that is still the case.  We have the brain power to provide a world where all persons are free and secure, but that will only happen if those who believe in Democracy band together.

Minimum Wage - We Can Do Better

The Federal Minimum wage law was a partisan issue from the day it was enacted in 1938.  Democrats in favor, Republican's opposed.  Politics has shaped the minimum wage more often than problem solving.  Dealing realistically with the minimum wage laws would be a great way to begin a new era where the good policy for the entire country comes before partisanship.

That the minimum wage laws have made the country a stronger and fairer country is beyond question.  But the minimum wage is far from a perfect policy solution.  Republicans have long objected to the minimum wage on the basis it destroys jobs.  They are correct, it does destroy entry level jobs, particularly in economically depressed areas.  But Republicans ignore the bigger picture that the minimum wage also reduces income inequality and in the process creates a stronger consumption base that builds a stronger economy and makes the country more financially solvent.

The basic problem the minimum wage seeks to solve is an unregulated free market pushes business to drive wages as low as possible to survive.  If one business in a market exploits workers they drastically reduce their costs of production.  Every other business in the market will be undercut on price and end up either cutting what they pay workers, or getting out of the market.  As this dynamic plays out across all industries in an economy it undermines the consumption that supports and grows our economy.

The formula enacted in 1938 addressed that problem by setting a floor on wages.  Summarizing the current law, the US Department of Labor website states:

"The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce..."

The second part of the current law is the problem - virtually any business is arguably "engaged in interstate commerce..."  The distinction drawn by the first test of gross business income of over $500,000 is undermined by the interstate commerce test.  Small local businesses that generate little revenue provide a disproportionate number of the entry level jobs in this country.  A high minimum wage makes hiring too expensive for these small businesses.   

We should learn from history.  The US and many European nations have followed this model that disregards the impact of a single minimum wage standard on small business for decades.  They have always been plagued with high unemployment rates.  The burden of unemployment always falls on the folks who need the most help.  A mandatory minimum wage that works for dynamic urban areas crushes entrepreneurship in not so dynamic urban pockets and more rural areas, while no minimum wages fosters market driven exploitation.  We need a minimum wage law that draws careful distinctions - and distinctions based on "interstate commerce" have failed. 

Facts about the minimum wage:

1.  Unemployment falls disproportionately on folks under the age of 34, and over the age of 54.  In particular people under the age of 24 have consistently high unemployment rates.  Within those age parameters people of color are the most likely to be unemployed. 

2.  64% of the new jobs in the United States come from small business.   In the 81 years between the enactment of the minimum wage in 1939 and 2019 the country averaged an unemployment rate of  5.8% of the working population.  That 5.8% unemployment figure represents literally millions of people who cannot find a job.  But that 5.8% figure is misleadingly low about the true impact of minimum wage laws. Really low unemployment years bring the average down.  In the last 81 years really low unemployment rates have usually occurred during wars when a large part of the young male population were in the military - substantially reducing unemployment among the demographic most likely to be unemployed.  

In the 10 years from 1961 to 1970 the minimum wage was raised 4 times and we experienced a prolonged period of rapid economic growth (without a subsequent financial collapse).  Purchasing power of the minimum wage reached its historical peak in 1968 when the minimum wage was 52% of the average wage.  For that period the average unemployment rate was 4.6%. That is still a lot of unemployed folks but that figure is deceptively low.  Many millions of the young men at highest risk of being unemployed were not in the job market - they were "employed" in the military as we rotated half a million soldiers in and out of Vietnam while maintaining forces in Europe, Korea and other locations around the world.

In the 10 years from 1971 to 1980 the Vietnam war wound down and the military downsized.  The minimum wage was only raised once while the unemployment rate averaged 6.49%.   From 1981 to 2000 as we moved to an a smaller, all volunteer military unemployment averaged 6.1%.

Historically, adjusting for wars and recessions, rising purchasing power from the minimum wage correlates directly with higher unemployment.

How to improve the minimum wage law - A conceptually better way to address the problem of market driven exploitation would be to link how much the owners and managers get paid to how much their employee's get paid.  That will take exploitation out of the marketplace while also enable fledgling business where no one is making a lot of money to bring in help to grow the business for everyone.  The kind of business that provides most of the entry level jobs for young people.

How do we draw the necessary distinctions?  Some ideas include:

Develop Tax policies that make it advantageous in the marketplace to pay your employees well, by setting up tax penalties if the managers make some specified amount more the the lowest paid workers. 

A distinction based on the form of business ownership could also be simple partial solution.  Make the minimum wage law presumptively applicable to any business organized as a limited liability entity as a part of the price of limited liability.  But businesses that operate as a sole proprietorship or partnership, where the owners are directly liable for the business losses, could be exempt from the minimum wage subject to some yearly income test.  

We are a country built on the notion we offer everyone the opportunity to choose their own path.  A one size applies to all minimum wage can preclude entrepreneurial folks trying to create their own path from taking on entry level employees.  A small business without big profit margins that might employ low skill entry level workers to grow into a bigger business can't afford the same wage a big established organization can afford.  The result is some people who would like to be employed are not.  That should be unacceptable.

We can do better.

Problems in Government: Social Security and Pension Plans

 In 1935 the Federal government created the Social Security system to address a chronic problem in society - how to take care of people who cannot support themselves through age or disability.

The problem had been an issue long before 1935, so many local and state governments, and some businesses had begun seeking to address the problem by creating pensions systems for their workers.  The concept that dominated was a defined benefit plan - if you worked a certain number of years you would be entitled to a amount of money each month after you reached retirement age defined as a percentage of your final salary.  It relies on complex  formula's to project how much money has to be set aside each year to have a pot big enough to meet retirement obligations.

Social Security as created in 1935 was a work around to supplement defined benefit plans already in place.

In the century since the defined benefit plan became popular it's two glaring deficiencies have long been apparent.  

The first problem is the model relies on the managers correctly projecting how much per year they need to set aside to provide a big enough pot for retired employees.  Management who have other business priorities, like finding money for raises for themselves, are incentivized to err on the side of putting too little aside.  Rather than what would be prudent they assume the best case scenario.  Assuming a 7% annual return has been common even during recessionary times.  The result has been pension plans often verge on insolvency during stock market downturns.

The second problem is defined benefit plans usually contain "vesting" requirements - money set aside for each employee did not actually become the employee's money until the employee had worked a specified number of years.  This was a considerable benefit to the organizations.  It allowed them to dangle the carrot of a pension to entice potential employees, but they could rely on a certain number of the employees leaving before their retirement vested, so the contributions in the leaving employee's account went back in the pot and reduced the overall contributions the organization had to make - in effect long term employees were subsidized by of short term employees.

The result has been chronically underfunded pensions, and workers who often accumulate little or no pension as they move through life.  It also tended to keep people at jobs they no longer liked in order to become vested.  Finally it is a hurdle for potential entrepreneur's needing a little financial security before striking out on their own to create new business.

Congress recognized the problems decades ago and responded with regulations aimed at private business. Private business, in response, moved away from defined benefit plans to 401K's, employee investment programs created by Congress that effectively funnel money to Wall Street - not only a huge money maker for Wall Street but also a huge factor in the chronic overvaluation of stock markets.  

Government and church related non-profits are still unregulated and continue to imposed vesting requirements that may require years of working service before the worker is entitled to their money.

The Congressional solution to the insolvency issue was a program aimed at funding bankrupt retirement plans,  But with the National debt currently exceeding the national income the ability of the Federal government to bail out underfunded pensions is limited, particularly given that the reason many retirement funds currently appear solvent is because of a stock market chronically inflated by low interest rates.  A market crash could devastate retirement plans, which could crush consumption.  

It is time to start redesigning Social Security law around what's good for workers rather than relying on the poorly aligned incentives of private pensions and 401K's herding retirement money to Wall Street.  A big step forward would be to give workers the option of having retirement contributions directed into the social security system in their name, or rather than supplementing their social security account, use it to fund a business, buy an asset or otherwise take control of their retirement pot without a complex web of restrictions. 

Trump's Tax Cuts Add $18,600 in Debt for each Taxpayer per Year

A social media post comparing the Biden plan with the Trump tax cuts notes a lot of middle income families paid somewhat less under the Trump plan compared to the Obama years.  I presume the goal of the comparison is to help in figuring out for whom to vote. The posting computed how much taxes a regular family would pay over a couple years before and after the Trump tax cuts. 

The post neglected to consider the National debt. Considering the National Debt exposes how the Trump tax cuts were crassly aimed at buying votes now with total disregard for future generations.  

The bottom line:  For each year the Trump Tax cuts have been in effect $18,600 in debt has been added per taxpayer.  Here is the data (and a website to help with your own computations - don't take my word for it).

In 2017 (the latest year for which the internet has data) around 144 million people filed Federal Income tax returns.  If you divide the National Debt by the total number of taxpayers here is what you get. 

The current National debt is approaching $27 Trillion.  (https://www.usdebtclock.org/ ).  When the Trump Tax cuts were enacted in 2017 the debt was $20 trillion.  At $20 Trillion the share of the debt for each of the 144 million taxpayers was about $158,000.  With the debt currently at $27 trillion each taxpayers share of the debt has increased to about $215,000.

So in the three years the Trump tax cuts have added $56,000  to each taxpayers share of the debt, about $18,600 per year, vastly more than the short term tax savings realized by any hypothetical middle income taxpaying family.  

This isn't just about Donald Trump, he is just playing out of the Republican party playbook.  Here are some historical facts:  

Between 1933 and 1981 the wealthiest taxpayers paid an average of 70% tax on that portion of their yearly income that was far beyond what the average taxpayer made.  In those years GDP growth averaged nearly 3% per year, and in 1981 the National Debt was the same as it was in 1933 - no net growth, even after funding WW II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and sending folks to the Moon.  This period also saw middle class incomes peak in the decade before Reagan.  

In 1981 when Ronald Reagan became President the National debt stood at about 30% of GDP.  Keeping taxes low on the wealthy was a top priority for Reagan and every Republican since, as Republican's have dominated Congress and government policy since Reagan.  The National debt has increased every year while GDP growth has been mediocre and middle class buying power has deteriorated. 

The net result is since Reagan the National Debt, as a percentage of GDP, has grown faster than GDP.  As a country we have gone backwards in economic development. 

Republican tax cuts for the wealthy (trickle down economics) are an abject failure.  Globalization hid the extent of the failure, the shrinking wealth of the middle class in the United States was offset by big corporations selling stuff to people all over the world so GDP was at least mediocre.  Wall Street did great, Main Street did badly.  

Forget Donald Trump and all his...quirks.  To get this country back on a sustainable fiscal path voters need to realize the problem has been and is Republican economics.

P.S. - Don't be confused by folks talking about a lower National Debt figures.  About 20 years ago Republicans who wanted to finance more tax cuts borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund.  The debt to the Social Security Trust Fund is often excluded (since it is the Fed owing money to the Feds) and only debt owed to the rest of the world is counted as the "National Debt".  Ironic in that the Social Security Trust fund is working folks retirement money - by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund Republicans managed to put workers on the hook for paying the interest on their own retirement funds.

Will the Protests Help or Hurt the Racial Justice Cause?

Been engaged in a long discussion on Facebook with various members of younger generation who basically excuse all the violence over George Floyds death for various historical and emotional reasons.  I tried to make the point if they want to make progress on racial justice they have to distinguish between non-violent protest and violent protest.  Didn't feel like I made much progress so decided to do some research.

Since the 2014 events in Ferguson Missouri seemed to offer a recent similar sequence of events, I decided to see what happened in the 2016 Presidential election.  Interestingly, in an election that saw very low voter turnout in many states, in Missouri the turnout was unusually high, around 70%.

Then the question becomes who did the Ferguson events motivate to vote.

In the 2016 election in Missouri Hillary Clinton got the lowest vote percentage (just under 38%) for a Democrat since 1972.   Donald Trump got 56.4%.

It seems to me to suggest that the outrage at the violence sent more people to the polls than outrage at the original shooting.  

Be happy if someone can find some other statistics to explain this result. 

Why Are Republicans so Prone to Conspiracy Theories?

During Obama's era there were always lots of conspiracy theories floating about, like the one that Obama was born in Africa that Trump promoted for years.  But it used to be the conspiracy theories came from outside government.  Since Donald Trump arrived in the White House the conspiracy theories seem to often begin in the White House.

I ask myself - why are Republicans currently so prone to conspiracy theories.  Perhaps some of it is just calculated political expediency - such as the theory Michael Flynn was somehow set up by the Obama administration working in collusion with the FBI.

But then I started wondering if it could be because a some Republicans think that in ideological battles the ends justify means.  So they cut corners and cheat to win.  And since they do it they suspect other people must also be doing it - hence they always look for hidden conspiracies.

That led me to a really interesting wikipedia website that lists all the federal officers convicted of crimes back through history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

I did some computations starting from 2009. 

Six of the folks listed on the Wikipedia list I classified as non-political crimes so did not include in the below computation - drugs or sex/relationship items.  They include 1 Independant, 1 Democrat and 4 Republicans - most the Republicans were Judges.

During the Obama years members of Congress convicted of politically related crimes were pretty evenly split, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.  During the Trump years the only listed Democrat convicted is, ironically, Michael Flynn.  Three Republican members of Congress have been convicted, but no Democrats.  (As a passing note of interest we also now have another Republican member of Congress under investigation for insider trading for allegedly using information from Congressional hearings to decide to sell all his stock right before the crash.)

Including all the convictions on the list we have 1 Independent, 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.

I am certainly not arguing this proves my theory, just throwing it out there because is interesting.  Particularly that Michael Flynn was evidently a registered Democrat?

Climate Change Hysterics and Deniers -Who to Support

The scientific notion burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global temperatures at an extraordinary rate that will cause massive disruption in our climate and life on this earth is, even to my unscientific mind, hugely complicated.  Some are absolutely convinced the theory is true, others are equally convinced it is not.  Our vote will determine which direction policy proceeds.

Who are we normal folk to believe as we decide how to vote?  

Is Burning Fossil Fuels Causing Unprecedented Global Warming?

The fact that the majority of the scientific establishment supports the theory burning fossil fuels is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that will change the climate rapidly is compelling.  But history has demonstrated the scientific establishment sometimes is prone to groupthink that hinders advancing knowledge.  You become a member of the establishment by building strong credentials, and often building strong credentials may be accomplished by adopting the theories of your mentors rather than challenging them.  So we cannot blindly accept majority scientific views.

On the other hand the news reports of polar ice caps rapidly disintegrating, small pacific islands preparing to move their entire populations away because of rising sea levels, and New York city subways being filled with water after Hurricane Sandy, all seem consistent with the theory.

But the "Climate Deniers", folks who poo poo the theory, point out the earths climate has always been changing, getting warmer, then colder.   A true fact.  They argue what is happening is simply a natural process unrelated to burning fossil fuels.

So how do I make a decision if choosing for vote for one position or the other?  

This problem is too complex to confidently predict the outcome.  It would seem the best course is to be conservative.  Look at the possible outcomes and choose the least catastrophic if we pursue the wrong course.

What happens if the climate deniers who poo poo the notion burning fossil fuels is overheating the planet, win the political argument so we continue relying on fossil fuels for energy?   If down the road it becomes obvious the climate deniers were wrong the planet will be much hotter, the sea levels will have risen more rapidly, the climate in different parts of the planet will have changed to a degree it causes massive population dislocation and could undermine food production but the process will be so accelerated we will not be able to turn it around and change direction.

What happens if the folks who believe we need to stop overheating the planet win the argument and in the end are wrong?  We will end up with a climate much more similar to what currently exist.  We will pay more for energy in the meantime, and will need to be pretty clever about finding energy sources to replace fossil fuels.  It will be an economic inconvenience, but it will reduce air pollution worldwide.  It may slow development in the poorest countries for some period of time, but it may not as the poorest countries are finding ways to bypass old technology with new technology.  It will probably not be a planet wide disaster.

Climate change is a vastly complex topic, but politics has turned it into a binary choice   The world is not binary - both sides are making educated guesses.  The consequences of being wrong seem much more dire if we chose the climate denier approach. We should be conservative and avoid the possibility of a more catastrophic outcome. 




       

The "Deep State" - Reminds Me of a Scary Story That You Tell Around the Campfire.

You never hear Democrats talking about the "Deep State."  It is always Republicans. I was thinking about how odd that is given the political history of our country the last 40 years.

Facts:

Republicans have controlled both the Presidency and Congress 8 years, Democrats 4.

We have had Republican Presidents for 24 years compared to 16 years of Democratic Presidents.

Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress 18 years compared to 10 years by Democrats.

Republican Presidents have worked with 1 house of Congress controlled by Republicans 6 years.  Democratic Presidents have worked with 1 house of Congress controlled by Democrats 4 years .

By every measure Republicans have dominated government for the last 40 years.  It seems if a deep state exists I have to conclude they have either created it or have been incompetent to deal with it. 

Here is a link to an earlier blog that speculated about why Republicans speak ominously of the "deep state" so often.

https://motrvoter.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-deep-state.html

What Should US Financial Policies Be After Covid-19

Since the US began reshaping the tax law under Ronald Reagan to accord with the fantasy of trickle down economics the increase in our National Debt has exceeded the increase in economic growth.  Now we have a pandemic that has exposed virtually the entire US corporate sector as financially naked.  They have no financial reserves.  They have been too busy borrowing at cheap rates, often simply to fund stock buy-backs or executive bonuses.  Something like 40% of the bank bail out after the 2008 economic collapse ended up going to stock buy-backs and executive bonuses.

Now we are piling on trillions of dollars of  Federal Government debt to hand out money to every kind of business and virtually every consumer to combat the limitations imposed by the Covid-19 virus.  Our fantasy economic policies in the past make this bail out essential to avoid another Great Depression.  

But once Covid-19 is gone and we can get back to some semblance of economic normalcy we need to make a serious course correction in our financial theories.

For decades tax policy, and the policies of the Federal Reserve, have encouraged rampant incursion of debt, mosty to funnel money into the hands of people that don't need to consume much while stripping it away from people who spend almost every dollar on consumption.  

Every time the economy so much as hiccup's the Federal reserve has cut interest rates.  Historically low interest rates have become the norm.

We have taxed Capital Gains at lower rates than what working folks pay so we have cultivated a whole generation who learned the road to success was in trading assets back and forth instead of producing goods or services.  They have magnified their profits by borrowing because interest rates are so low that the profits they can make after paying Capital gains taxes can still make them wealthy, and their mutual overconfidence (the Fed will always bail us out) made them discount the fact that borrowing can also magnify losses.

Regular folks who spend a large part of their income on consumption pay the same or higher tax rate as people who make more in a year than they could spend in a lifetime.

Will Covid-19 be a catalyst for smarter economic policy making?  Of just lead to more of the same, or a pendulum swing back to policies that impoverish everyone but the heads of State?

The Myth of Voter Fraud?

Wisconsin got caught in the unfolding Corona Virus shut-downs that have turned the entire country inside out, so wanted to allow people more voting options to adapt to stay at home orders, absentee ballots being late due to government shutdowns from stay at home orders and the other Covid issues that have turned normal routines upside down.  The Republican dominated legislature challenged the idea in court and won, alleging it would create opportunities for voter fraud.  So all the voters in Milwaukee, a city that normally has about 175 polling places, had to vote in 5 polling locations.  That's the stuff of comic satire, not reality.

The studies I find on the internet that are not commissioned by partisan Republican think tanks suggest that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, although clerical errors by bureacrats are more common.  One comprehensive look at voter fraud found that fraud occurs in about .00003 to .00025 percent of the cases.  Another study found 31 cases of confirmed fraud in 1 Billion ballots cast.  Your chances of getting struck by lightening are higher than the chance of voter fraud occuring.

What tips me toward being pretty confident this cure is far worse than the disease is that the Republican leaning think tanks such as the Heritage foundation focus on anecdotal anecdotal instances of fraud, and then suggest that since they only found these few cases there must be way more.  They make no attempt to figure out if fraud actually changes elections, they just raise suspicions.

Also, curiously I couldn't find much of anything on the internet suggesting the bureacrats who handle voting believe fraud is a big problem, even bureacrats in deeply Red States.

Based on the data I have seen it seems to me fraud is so vanishingly rare making it harder to vote benefits no one but a minority party who wants to depress the vote.

Claims of fraud are pretty common after elections - poor losers sure that voters couldn't have picked another candidate over them. Verified fraud is very rare.  But the President of this country and the Republican party see voter fraud as such a big issue that piles of bills the House sent to the Senate sit unvoted on in the Senate while they rail about voter fraud.

I just wish those Republicans who actually value Democracy would step up and object to their parties blatent win at all costs strategy's.  Republicans have a majority on the Supreme Court and probably will have for some time.  They can take run to the Supreme Court if there are real instances of fraud affecting Republicans and be assured of winning.  The don't need to cheat to win.

Trump, Putin and Avoiding Reponsibility

I have been a little baffled about why President Trump seems so determined to make States the primary responsible parties for responding to Covid 19.  All the experts, and common sense, say it makes much more sense to have a coordinated response from the Federal Government that has far more resources that the States. 

Then a news item from the Economist this morning noted that as the cash-starved hospitals across Russia braced for the exponential growth of Covid cases, Mr Putin transferred responsibility for dealing with the epidemic to the regions, which have been starved of resources for much of Putin's presidency.

Of course Trump is pointing the finger the States.  Effectively managing the Covid 19 is not Trump's (or Putin's) top priority.  Top priority is minimizing the damage from their policies that have crippled the response.

Put somebody else in charge so you can blame them.  

It will work for a lot of voters.  It is probably the reason Trump actually experienced a bump in popularity after Covid 19 hit.  He is on TV every single day being comforting because that's what many voters see, not the obscure news stories chronicaling administration bumbling.  

He is seeking to win hearts so folks won't actually look at the facts when it comes time to assess who screwed up.  He will point at the States.  A lot of folks will buy it.  

Maybe not enough to save his Presidency since a lot of Red State governors are those complaining.  But it seems to be his best option for avoiding the fallout from his administrations documented bungling.

You have to give the man his due.  President Trump is an incompetent executive, but he is a master at stroking and reinforcing peoples emotional ideas about what they would like to be true.

Covid and the Sanctity of Life

One can't help but ponder the odd quirks in Conservative Christian views on the sanctity of life.

Many politicians who owe their political success to Conservative Christians, including President Trump and the Governer of Texas, have suggested we should not be allowing Covid 19 to seriously impact our economy.  After all Covid 19 mostly kills the weak and the old.  They should be willing to take the risk for the sake of the young and the healthy (those who make good workers).

These same politicians would usually deny those who are ill and old the right to choose to die comfortably, on the grounds life is sacred.  

They would also deny women the right to chose not to take on the burden of a child they don't feel they could handle, again on the grounds life is sacred, even though data suggests forcing a mother who is overwhelmed by the responsiibility to have the child will often end up with both the mother and child impoverished, prone to substance abuse and early and unpleasant death.

Yet when those Conservative Christian's wealth threatened it is just fine to let those weak and old people die to protect businesses and investments.  Life is not so sacred when it might impact their wealth (or for that matter their ability to enjoy a steak for dinner - only certain human lives are sacred, certainly not a cow).  It seems like life is sacred only when it doesn't affect their life choices.

Rather like the Conservative Christians in the South who convinced themselves for generations they were doing people a favor by enslaving them.

Makes no sense to me, but it clearly does to them.

Eliminating Capitalism - A Discussion Invitiation

If we want to eliminate capitalism what does that mean exactly?  To me Capitalism isn't a thing, it is a theory to explain human behavior.  The exact nature of Capitalism has varied from from culture to culture and even within cultures over time.  Capitalism in the United States was a lot different in the 1950's and 1960's from the Capitalism we have today.  So I would like to understand exactly what it is folks want to eliminate.  

First a couple caveats - I think government should regulate the private sector to prevent exploitation or excessive speculation.  I also absolutely think Government should manage healthcare.  Healthcare and the profit motive are fundementally incompatible.  

But beyond health care I have alot of questions about what folks anticipate if we eliminate Capitalism.  Here are some that spring to mind.

1.  If I want to start a business, can I do it?  Do I have to get government approval?

2.  If I want to get other people to invest to give me the capital to get the business up and running can I do it?  Or do I have to go to government to get funding?

3.  Will there be a stock market?  If not what becomes of all the money people have invested in the stock market?

4.  Will government decide who runs major industries?  Will Elon Musk still run Tesla?  Or will running Tesla become a poltical perk of some bureacrat who helps the adminstration get elected?

5.  Are there other industries besides health care government should manage?  

6.  With healthcare and other economic activities we decide government should manage, what should governments role be?   Micromanaging from top to bottom?  Or carrots and sticks (incentives and prohibitions) to guide organizations run by private citizens?

Developing a Corona Virus Cure

In the development of drugs to treat pandemics we are at the mercy of the private drug companies who have consistently demonstrated profits are more important the people.

Current news reports say the Federal government is going to pay enormous amounts to fund research to help Johnson and Johnson try to develop a Covid Virus cure.  Johnson and Johnson says it will be a "non-profit" venture during the pandemic.  My question is, who owns the patent after the pandemic is over?  I'm pretty sure it won't be the Federal Government.  When the next pandemic comes along will Johnson and Johnson use the knowledge and data they develop to negotiate the next big contract while the Federal Government stumbles along in the dark?

We saw the negative impact of profit driven medical research with the ventilator scam recently reported in the news.  The Federal government  paid a lot of money a decade or so ago to small ventilator company to develop an inexpensive and portable ventilator.  The company had delivered a couple of working prototypes. then the company got bought out by a bigger company who demanded more money - probably to cover the costs of them buying out the small company.  The Feds paid them more but still the big company evidently just pushed the project onto a back burner - industry insiders say they just wanted to kill a cheaper ventilator that would undermine their products.  Why didn't the Federal government sue for breach of contract?  Might relate to the fact we have an administration that believes the pursuit of money is sacred.  If that contract had been completed under contract we would have a lot more ventilators available today.

I'm no starry eyed believer in governments competence.  Bureacracy is always a problem in any big enterprise, particularly government.  But our model for drug development, and medical preparedness really needs an overhaul.  We are much too accomodating to private enterprises profit ambitions.

When the Federal Government hands out money to pursue a particular project, they should retain the rights to all the work product, including any patents involved, and enforce those rights.  It is not a novel concept, the private sector does that routinely.   

I'm sure the CEO's of big companies will say they would never agree to work under those circumstances.  I say fine.  There are a lot of bright, innovative people out there not working for giant multinationals.  The Federal Government should be developing a core medical technology competency to manage healthcare in this country, to outsource and manage development of new drugs and technology, by controlling the work product produced from the funds paid to hire research and development. 

Partisanship - Don't Become What You Despise

Democracy is fundementally rooted in compromise - it is the ability to protect what we perceive to be our own interest while acknowledging the validity of other interests.  It is seeking a win-win solution to legislative problems - where the solution probably doesn't give every viewpoint everything they want, but it strikes a balance that protects all interests as much as possible.

Our two party politics makes that sort of solution really hard.  Most voters are busy with their lives with little time for the intricacies of finding a public policy that serves all Americans.  Ambitious politicans find it much easier to cultivate votes by criticism.  If voters don't feel compelled to pay close attention a politican with no real understanding of the complexities of public policy who is aggressive with criticism will usually beat a politican who tries to speak truthfully about the complexities.

But even beyond the issues arising from incentives to aspiring politicians that run counter to good decision making, there are more basic issues that, if we do not all keep in mind, undermine by-partisan action.

We all have no problem accepting that people are vastly different physically.  There are tall people, not so tall people, stout people, skinny people, black people, white people, a wide variety of eye colors, hair colors.  We see it and experience it every day.

We have much more difficulty not falling into the trap of thinking that everybody's brain should work just like ours.

Our Brains Are As Different As Our Bodies:

We all have in our brains various levels of messenger chemicals - nuerotransmitters.  Each individuals mix of brain chemicals shapes their view of the world.

Science has not yet figured out how to study variations in the the chemical nature of the brain in living people.  Brain scans only detect gross electrical activity.  They cannot distinguish between different chemical messenger systems using the same nueral pathways.  However, science has known for over 100 years the amount of many nuerotransmitters in the brain fluctuate over the course of a day, the monthly moon cycle, a calender year.  We all know Melotonin. We buy Melotinin at the drug store to help us sleep.  Melotonin is high at midnight and low mid-day, low in Summer, high in Winter.  Some nuerotransmitter levels fluctuate in opposition to melotinin, others appear to run in cycles not directly related to melotonin.

At this point we can only speculate about the impact on belief differences in nuerotransmitter levels may lead to given sciences inability to directly study the impact of those fluctuations in a living brain.  But it seems almost self evident that, given how quickly a developing embryo's brain develops, the relative level of each particular nuerotransmitter at conception will have a strong influence on the balance between different nuerotransmitters systems in adulthood.

One of the brains messenger chemicals (Oxytocin) is linked to a community outlook, to balancing, or even choosing community over individual interests.  Animals that live in communties usually have way more Oxytocin than animals of the same species that live a solo existance. 

Another of the brains messenger chemicals, Vasopressin, the levels of which some evidence suggests seems to fluctuate in a cycle in opposition to Oxytocin - tends to make people more likely to be loners, to be focused on their own well-being. 

Sounds suspiciously like folks with more Oxytocin than Vasopressin are more inclined to be comfortable in the Democratic party, and folks that see the world from the Republican viewpoint are folks with more Vasopressin than Oxytocin.  Oddly this correlates with gender data.  Women generally have more Oxytocin and less Vasopressin and are more likely to be Democrats, men tend to have more Vasopressin than Oxytocin and are more likely to be Republicans.

We can only speculate at this point because science is woefully ignorant about the impact on our thinking of nuerotransmitter variation in living humans.  But the point to take away is we do not all think the same, and our differences are not because anyone knows some absolute truth, they stem from biological differences in our brains.

Avoiding Partisanship

Partisanship is rampant when one or both political parties make decisions based primarily on ideological notions rooted in the particular individuals emotional belief system, in turn rooted at least in part on their particular mix of nuerotransmitters, and dismiss facts that do not fit with their world view.

It seems to me that at the moment we are reaping the harvest of 40 years of Republican ideologically based problem solving that puts the individual above the community in all things.  We are now going through our second financial collapse in little over a decade.  In the 40 years of Republican ideological dominance growth in the National debt has outpaced economic growth.  

The rest of us need to keep our perspective.  We need to recognize that other people see the world differently through no fault of their own, they just have a different mix of brain chemicals.   We must laser focus on facts, not ideological notions and emotional outrage.  Having the pendulum swing far to the left is not in the long term interest of our country.  We need to bring it back to a balance that respects individual rights while recognizing the benefits and needs of community.

Buy Backs and Student Loans - We Can Do Better

The Stock Market reached all time highs a month or two ago.  Most of the increase over the last couple years hasn't been because investors thought corporations were a good investment. For years the stock market has been driven to new high after new high not by extra investor interest, but by corporations using their profits to buy back their own stock. 

Wall Street and CEO's promoted stock buy backs as a way to "add to shareholder value."   

Where is all that shareholder value now?  The only folks whose profit was not wiped out by the stock market crash were the CEO's who got paid more because of the increase in stock price, and Wall Street folks who collected trading fees for the transactions.  

Since 1996 Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress 14 years, Democrats 2.  Republicans have controlled Congress and economic policy ever since Ronald Reagan.  They sit by complacently and do nothing but encourage whatever Wall Street wants.  We are now in the midst of the second major economic collapse in the last 24 years, and for that period growth in the national debt has exceeded growth in the economy. 

Now the Fed wants to start buying bundled student loans to address the economic collapse.  What it will accomplish is protect all those loan sharks that buried students in unaffordable education debt, and Wall Street, who then bought the loans to bundle groups of loans into investment vehicles.

Its 2008 all over again.  In 2008 it was bundled mortgages from all those fly-bynight lenders who sold houses to people who couldn't afford them by pitiching it as a surefire investment that would increase in value.  Wall Street bought those mortgages and bundled them into investment vehicles to sell.  Waves of foreclosures caused the financial world to freeze up with fear over who was going to have to take the loss.

Voters need to figure out that Republican economic theories are stupidly simple - business - any way people can figure out to make a buck- is good, government is bad.  It is almost criminal complacency rooted in the idea if someone is making money by exploiting other peoples situational fears or difficulties - more power to them. 

Share this, don't just like it.  Republicans get away with their stupid ideas because voters generally don't understand markets - polls consistently say voters think Republicans are better at managing the economy.  

Education about how Republican economics actually plays out will insure a better future for our kids and grandkids.  

Bailouts, CEO Pay & Stock Buybacks

Many huge Corporations in this country are facing almost immediate bankruptcy as a result of the Corono virus.  Letting them go bankrupt would torpedo our economy for years, maybe decades.

But if these companies had been using their profits to build up a rainy day fund they wouldn't need goverment intervention.  Apple has enough cash stuck away to finance operations for something like three years.  The problem is so many companies have been using their profits for stock buybacks - going into the financial markets to buy their own stock - instead of funding an emergency operations fund.  

The airlines are the poster boys for this practice, 96% of their profits over the last decade went into buying back their own stock instead of socking money away for a rainy day.  But buy backs have been endemic across publicly traded corporations in almost all industries.

From an operational standpoint it makes no sense for a big company to buy its own stock back.  But it makes sense for enriching CEO's.  Part of CEO pay is tied to the companies stock price - so even though using corporate funds to buy the companies own stock makes the corporation a little poorer (although not on paper because it drives the stock price up briefly) it makes the CEO paycheck bigger.

From World War II up until 1980 CEO pay averaged about 20% higher than the pay of the average worker.  Since then CEO Pay has increased nearly 1000% percent while worker pay has increased 11%.  

This vast CEO pay increase has little relation to increasing the value of the corporations CEO's run.  Since 1980 CEO pay has grown 70% faster than the value of the corporations CEO's run.  The extraordinary rise in CEO pay is a direct result of corporate directors who set pay, and CEO's who appoint directors, effectively scratching each others backs to advance their own interestes rather than the corporations.   (see footnote 1)

The House Democrats want to link Corporate bail-outs to eliminating Corporate stock buybacks, and limiting CEO pay while the corporations are operating on government money.

Should be a no-brainer, but the Republican Senate and President believe business can do no wrong - their policies over the last 40 years created the CEO pay boom and the mediocre economy that has accompanied it - and the the exploding national debt that is about to go into warp speed debt accumulation with trillion dollar bail outs.

(Footnote 1) - “The CEO Pay Machine” by Steven Clifford, a former CEO.  Blue rider press/Penguin Random House LLC, published in 2017.

Making America Great Again - Virus Testing

At a press conference this morning the President was again disdainful of the media hysteria about the corona virus, and essentailly bragging he got tested although he didn't want to and didn't have the virus, and people should not worry about getting tested unless their Doctor tells them they need to.

This was wrong on so many levels.  

Three months into this Corona virus outbreak and the President of the United States still fails to comprehend that people can carry this virus around for long periods of time, spreading it to others, without showing symptoms.  He fails to understand that where test kits are scarce doctors don't want to test until they see symptoms, but that isn't because that is the best protocol - it is because we have an inability to test as many people as we should.  

He seems clueless about the fact many Americans don't have a personal doctor at their disposal at a moments notice, and maybe can't afford a personal consultation.  Like George Bush's moment of confusion at a supermarket counter it illuminates how out of touch our current President is from the life of everyday folk. 

He ignores the fact individual doctors can make mistakes and do frequently.  Given President Trump's history of surrounding himself with marginally competent yes men I can't help but wonder about the quality of his doctor's medical advice.  

The President consistently says what supports his ego and re-election prospects rather than what the country needs to hear.  

His ignorance is a dragging anchor on an effective response to the virus and is and will aggravate the gravity of the economic downturn into which we are sinking.