After two years of this administration, the scorecard isn't all that good. Not everything is bad but enough things are that we see the polls reflect the below average performance.
Of course there are two things to consider.
If you disagree with the goals in a specific area you are unlikely to view results favorably. There are however certain goals which are generally agreed to by all.
One of these is to have a healthy economy and to some extent it is. Of course it isn't the best economy ever, its just not bad. Unemployment is low but the quality of jobs and income growth suffers from what is our new economic reality which is eliminating high paying low skill work. This is significant because many of the people who were unhappy two years ago about their job prospects are in the exact same situation and without some new industrial undertaking it is unlikely to change. Those with skills are in demand and so we see effectively a continuation of the situation since the last recession. The danger is that if we have another recession, our fallback safety nets are weaker now because of our deficits.
It should be noted that the last two years saw an increase in the deficit as tax breaks lost revenue which was not made up by increased economic activity. The administration has adopted supply side theories which try to increase demand by reducing the supply cost (simplistically). However, while this works academically, it requires that demand have no ceiling. It also requires that reductions in the cost of production get passed along. We know that much of the tax break money was simply passed along to stockholders with very little of it being used to improve production. The reason for this is simple, capital has been very inexpensive since the financial crisis so worthwhile projects were already funded.
Reduced Government has probably been one of the more successful initiatives of the Administration as a fair number of regulations have been removed. You may not agree with the aim, but it was something they were able to do fairly successfully. It impacts other areas Americans care about but it was something they achieved to a large extent.
Similarly they have been able to appoint some conservative justices to both the Supreme Court and lower courts. You may not agree with this aim or the nominees but they did manage to appoint them.
What impact they will have will play out over the next few decades no matter how the next election goes.
(to be continued)
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Extremism?
A lot of people are now talking about how the two parties have drifted further and further apart. This is primarily the result of the way we select candidates via primaries.
Primaries attract a small percentage of voters and the ones who show up are often voters with an agenda. So more progressive leaning people vote in Democratic primaries and more reactionary people vote in Republican primaries. Once selected as the party nominee they get the votes of the more moderate members who would never have picked that candidate to be the nominee.
Take one of the more talked about Progressives elected to this congress, Alexandria Octavio-Cortez won beat the incumbent by garnering 15,897 primary votes to his 11,761. This was a clear victory but I should point out that almost 700,000 people live in that district and the vast majority are registered Democrats. Would the results have been the same if turnout was higher? Maybe but also maybe not.
I'm sure the policies embraced by Ms Octavio-Cortez are popular with many, and they stir emotions which got people to vote in the primary. It may or not be representative of the actual views of the district.
The same thing happens on the Republican side and primary success was the first ingredient that propelled Donald Trump to be the nominee. His primary success was based on a number of factors but ultimately he generated more enthusiasm among his supporters then the more conventional candidates did, although in many cases his supporters would not have been a majority of the voters. They were enough to win the primaries.
This impact has led to the divergence of the two parties as both parties nominate people with more extreme views.
Our current process provides a lot of money to people involved in running campaigns and lot of news opportunities, it doesn't provide majority approved candidates in many instances.
It might be better if we had less theatre and more participation in our selection process. In today's age it should be easier for the parties to provide their members more input into the process.
Just not sure they want to.
Primaries attract a small percentage of voters and the ones who show up are often voters with an agenda. So more progressive leaning people vote in Democratic primaries and more reactionary people vote in Republican primaries. Once selected as the party nominee they get the votes of the more moderate members who would never have picked that candidate to be the nominee.
Take one of the more talked about Progressives elected to this congress, Alexandria Octavio-Cortez won beat the incumbent by garnering 15,897 primary votes to his 11,761. This was a clear victory but I should point out that almost 700,000 people live in that district and the vast majority are registered Democrats. Would the results have been the same if turnout was higher? Maybe but also maybe not.
I'm sure the policies embraced by Ms Octavio-Cortez are popular with many, and they stir emotions which got people to vote in the primary. It may or not be representative of the actual views of the district.
The same thing happens on the Republican side and primary success was the first ingredient that propelled Donald Trump to be the nominee. His primary success was based on a number of factors but ultimately he generated more enthusiasm among his supporters then the more conventional candidates did, although in many cases his supporters would not have been a majority of the voters. They were enough to win the primaries.
This impact has led to the divergence of the two parties as both parties nominate people with more extreme views.
Our current process provides a lot of money to people involved in running campaigns and lot of news opportunities, it doesn't provide majority approved candidates in many instances.
It might be better if we had less theatre and more participation in our selection process. In today's age it should be easier for the parties to provide their members more input into the process.
Just not sure they want to.
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Brrrrr
The weatherman says we are getting another visit from the North Pole and this one isn't bringing any presents.
Forecasts are pretty grim with lows well below zero in some places and wind chill in very negative numbers.
Of course it is the middle of the winter and cold weather is to be expected, but it just seems we are pretty consistently setting records year after year.
If the climate is stable new records would be a fairly rare event, as random fluctuations play out.
My fairly limited understanding based on a little knowledge (dangerous) is that as the earth heats up, we see both long term and short term consequences.
Long term we see oceans rising as global ice melts. We may also see disruptions in ocean currents as fresh water enters the water changing some of the dynamics.
Shorter term we see impacts on the weather, as there is more energy in the system and this has a tendency to amplify certain events.
Certainly we are having more once in a century typhoons and hurricanes than once in a century would indicate.
The polar vortex forms in the Arctic during the winter and is contained there by things like the jet stream. In years when the restraints are disrupted it wobbles and we get cold.
It is also likely due to the warming trend in the Arctic itself as warmer surface temperatures disrupt the vortex behavior.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a trend in which this previously rare behavior is increasing as the Earth warms.
It may confuse some of our leaders, but it doesn't contradict Climate Change. It actually is a symptom to a certain extent.
Bundle up!
Forecasts are pretty grim with lows well below zero in some places and wind chill in very negative numbers.
Of course it is the middle of the winter and cold weather is to be expected, but it just seems we are pretty consistently setting records year after year.
If the climate is stable new records would be a fairly rare event, as random fluctuations play out.
My fairly limited understanding based on a little knowledge (dangerous) is that as the earth heats up, we see both long term and short term consequences.
Long term we see oceans rising as global ice melts. We may also see disruptions in ocean currents as fresh water enters the water changing some of the dynamics.
Shorter term we see impacts on the weather, as there is more energy in the system and this has a tendency to amplify certain events.
Certainly we are having more once in a century typhoons and hurricanes than once in a century would indicate.
The polar vortex forms in the Arctic during the winter and is contained there by things like the jet stream. In years when the restraints are disrupted it wobbles and we get cold.
It is also likely due to the warming trend in the Arctic itself as warmer surface temperatures disrupt the vortex behavior.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a trend in which this previously rare behavior is increasing as the Earth warms.
It may confuse some of our leaders, but it doesn't contradict Climate Change. It actually is a symptom to a certain extent.
Bundle up!
Monday, January 28, 2019
Government
Many if not most Americans are frustrated with the Government. It just doesn't seem to function anymore as it gets caught up in factional battles over just about everything.
Many things do work, at least when not shut down, but the perception is often worse than the reality.
Take the Post Office. Besides the fact that it loses money in the service it provides, partly because of generous pension benefits and partly because it is required to provide service everywhere, it is pretty reliable. It has certainly lost a lot of business to digital methods and it has to compete with some fierce competition on package delivery. Still it is generally very reliable.
Similarly TSA does an admirable job in difficult circumstances.
In fact its fairly obvious that mot federal agencies are effective despite the political turbulence they deal with.
The part of Government that doesn't seem to work is the ones we get to vote for.
The congress and the presidency get terrible approval ratings and deservedly so.
We just had the longest shut down in history for no apparent reason.
We may have another one in a couple of weeks.
With a divided Government it is unlikely we are going to see any major accomplishments over the next two years.
Maybe if they can keep it operating, it will be enough.
Many things do work, at least when not shut down, but the perception is often worse than the reality.
Take the Post Office. Besides the fact that it loses money in the service it provides, partly because of generous pension benefits and partly because it is required to provide service everywhere, it is pretty reliable. It has certainly lost a lot of business to digital methods and it has to compete with some fierce competition on package delivery. Still it is generally very reliable.
Similarly TSA does an admirable job in difficult circumstances.
In fact its fairly obvious that mot federal agencies are effective despite the political turbulence they deal with.
The part of Government that doesn't seem to work is the ones we get to vote for.
The congress and the presidency get terrible approval ratings and deservedly so.
We just had the longest shut down in history for no apparent reason.
We may have another one in a couple of weeks.
With a divided Government it is unlikely we are going to see any major accomplishments over the next two years.
Maybe if they can keep it operating, it will be enough.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Political Climate?
We live in a world where everything seems to turn into a political argument. Take climate change. This is a matter of science and at this time the science universally points to a man made contribution to it. You can argue the fringes of the science, such as how much is natural versus how much is human related, but we are clearly in a global warming trend caused by the increasing amounts of CO2 in the air. Add carbon to the air is contributory,
Now as we see the polar ice caps recede and the ocean temperatures rise, nothing about it is political. However, because the way to prevent it includes restrictions on certain activities, we see it politicized.
It is not "fake news" or a liberal plot to hurt this country in some fashion. The oceans are rising and we were and are one of the primary contributors to the problem. Policies designed to promote short term profits for a few at the cost of humanity are, well, short sighted.
We see one party take positions that are anti-science. Since the people they dislike, the liberals, accept science as valid, they won't. This is part of the great liberal conspiracy to …. well I don't know what, but its something bad.
The reactions are so silly that when something that the conservatives have supported for pretty much forever get associated with a liberal they suddenly oppose it.
To some extent they argue that it is part of the plan to grow the Government as the regulations will have to be enforced. Complying with the regulations might cost some industries some profit, profit they can use to make campaign contributions to their friends. Meanwhile the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.
They just take the money and vote.
Now as we see the polar ice caps recede and the ocean temperatures rise, nothing about it is political. However, because the way to prevent it includes restrictions on certain activities, we see it politicized.
It is not "fake news" or a liberal plot to hurt this country in some fashion. The oceans are rising and we were and are one of the primary contributors to the problem. Policies designed to promote short term profits for a few at the cost of humanity are, well, short sighted.
We see one party take positions that are anti-science. Since the people they dislike, the liberals, accept science as valid, they won't. This is part of the great liberal conspiracy to …. well I don't know what, but its something bad.
The reactions are so silly that when something that the conservatives have supported for pretty much forever get associated with a liberal they suddenly oppose it.
To some extent they argue that it is part of the plan to grow the Government as the regulations will have to be enforced. Complying with the regulations might cost some industries some profit, profit they can use to make campaign contributions to their friends. Meanwhile the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.
They just take the money and vote.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Shutdown Futility
The shutdown is over, or at least in an armistice as a continuing resolution provides a three week window to negotiate on border security.
Its hard to imagine the shutdown being revisited after this one was an expensive exercise in futility, that did not succeed in financing a wall that the public generally doesn't think is needed.
Certainly in some areas on the border either physical or technological barrier might serve a purpose, but we also need to understand that barriers can almost always be defeated.
There are two issues on the border.
One involves immigrants, people who want to find a better or safer life for themselves and their families. They cross illegally because we allow so few of them to come legally.
A good number of Americans object to them because they violated the law but also because they represent changes in our population that some resent and reject.
We see Spanish becoming more and more common in many aspects of our life as the Hispanic population has grown. This is not a new trend but conservative media has taken it on as a crusade arguing that traditional "white" America is threatened..
This is essentially the same argument that was made by previous generations as waves of German, Irish, Italian, Polish, and others came to this country. Of course we had African Americans brought here against their will who help form our traditional America. Already we see the sons and grandsons of Hispanic immigrants occupying positions of importance and their ethnic background is not a factor.
The other issue is the importation of contraband, mainly drugs. Drugs are so profitable that all our attempts to stop them have failed in the end. People who want them have consistently been able to get them. Stopping usage would be the only effective control, eliminate demand and supply will stop. We have been unable to do that, either by treatment or incarceration and it has been costly failures.
A wall will not stop this profitable business, it probably won't have any impact on it.
It just won't work.
Its hard to imagine the shutdown being revisited after this one was an expensive exercise in futility, that did not succeed in financing a wall that the public generally doesn't think is needed.
Certainly in some areas on the border either physical or technological barrier might serve a purpose, but we also need to understand that barriers can almost always be defeated.
There are two issues on the border.
One involves immigrants, people who want to find a better or safer life for themselves and their families. They cross illegally because we allow so few of them to come legally.
A good number of Americans object to them because they violated the law but also because they represent changes in our population that some resent and reject.
We see Spanish becoming more and more common in many aspects of our life as the Hispanic population has grown. This is not a new trend but conservative media has taken it on as a crusade arguing that traditional "white" America is threatened..
This is essentially the same argument that was made by previous generations as waves of German, Irish, Italian, Polish, and others came to this country. Of course we had African Americans brought here against their will who help form our traditional America. Already we see the sons and grandsons of Hispanic immigrants occupying positions of importance and their ethnic background is not a factor.
The other issue is the importation of contraband, mainly drugs. Drugs are so profitable that all our attempts to stop them have failed in the end. People who want them have consistently been able to get them. Stopping usage would be the only effective control, eliminate demand and supply will stop. We have been unable to do that, either by treatment or incarceration and it has been costly failures.
A wall will not stop this profitable business, it probably won't have any impact on it.
It just won't work.
Friday, January 25, 2019
Another Arrest
The FBI raided and arrested another member of the dontard's campaign for obstruction of justice.
Roger Stone is accused of seven counts of obstruction and while an arrest is not a conviction, it is pretty likely that they have significant evidence and corroborating testimony.
This is the 34the arrest to date in the investigation, not all of whom were directly associated with the campaign.
There is video of the arrest which in all honesty seems more appropriate for someone who might resist, but I'm sure the FBI had their reasons.
One source indicates that Watergate resulted in 40 indictments (not all resulted in jail) and of course one Presidential resignation.
This still exceeds the current count, but the investigation is not over.
I would like to point out that while the Watergate break-in was done before we were so digital, the crimes are pretty much the same, both designed to infiltrate and steal information about the opponents campaign.
What is definitively different is that the Watergate was an operation that did not include a foreign power while the current Russian probe clearly does.
In addition to the Russians we have Wikileaks, an international group.
Its hard to imagine Nixon, the fiery anti-communist collaborating with the Soviet Union for something like this, but of course times have changed.
Its also very difficult for the dontard to ever accept responsibility for these actions and I still very much doubt that impeachment is feasible.
Consider how close we got to impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about his interaction with a white house intern.
Did not involve any foreign governments. Don't think anyone was indicted for what happened, and of course the current dontard has very likely lied consistently about similar activities and the payoffs associated with those activities.
He just hasn't done it to congress officially.
He still has time now that we have a democratic house.
Roger Stone is accused of seven counts of obstruction and while an arrest is not a conviction, it is pretty likely that they have significant evidence and corroborating testimony.
This is the 34the arrest to date in the investigation, not all of whom were directly associated with the campaign.
There is video of the arrest which in all honesty seems more appropriate for someone who might resist, but I'm sure the FBI had their reasons.
One source indicates that Watergate resulted in 40 indictments (not all resulted in jail) and of course one Presidential resignation.
This still exceeds the current count, but the investigation is not over.
I would like to point out that while the Watergate break-in was done before we were so digital, the crimes are pretty much the same, both designed to infiltrate and steal information about the opponents campaign.
What is definitively different is that the Watergate was an operation that did not include a foreign power while the current Russian probe clearly does.
In addition to the Russians we have Wikileaks, an international group.
Its hard to imagine Nixon, the fiery anti-communist collaborating with the Soviet Union for something like this, but of course times have changed.
Its also very difficult for the dontard to ever accept responsibility for these actions and I still very much doubt that impeachment is feasible.
Consider how close we got to impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about his interaction with a white house intern.
Did not involve any foreign governments. Don't think anyone was indicted for what happened, and of course the current dontard has very likely lied consistently about similar activities and the payoffs associated with those activities.
He just hasn't done it to congress officially.
He still has time now that we have a democratic house.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Fixing Health Coverage?
The number of Americans without health insurance is on the rise.
LA Times Health Insurance
The failure to advertise the open season, the ending of penalties for not having coverage and the attacks on Medicaid have reversed the downward trend in uninsured and started an increase.
Not having coverage leads to failure in many cases to get preventive care and screenings that indicate problems early.
The fallback position for people without health care is normally the emergency rooms where care is most expensive and often conditions have become more dangerously progressed.
We were supposed to see a great new bunch of health plans that would be better, cheaper and more affordable.
We did not.
We do see some plans that offer very little coverage but cost at least as much as the plans that were on the exchange.
They don't receive a Government subsidy so they are cheaper for the Government, just not the user.
In fact we should not lose sight that the goal of the current administration and republicans in general is to protect businesses and wealthy people who object to having tax money help the less fortunate.
We see that in the tax reform that they passed.
The reform was to make our tax system less progressive and allow the rich to keep more of their money.
More houses, private jets, and yachts instead of health screenings for our citizens.
What's not to like?
LA Times Health Insurance
The failure to advertise the open season, the ending of penalties for not having coverage and the attacks on Medicaid have reversed the downward trend in uninsured and started an increase.
Not having coverage leads to failure in many cases to get preventive care and screenings that indicate problems early.
The fallback position for people without health care is normally the emergency rooms where care is most expensive and often conditions have become more dangerously progressed.
We were supposed to see a great new bunch of health plans that would be better, cheaper and more affordable.
We did not.
We do see some plans that offer very little coverage but cost at least as much as the plans that were on the exchange.
They don't receive a Government subsidy so they are cheaper for the Government, just not the user.
In fact we should not lose sight that the goal of the current administration and republicans in general is to protect businesses and wealthy people who object to having tax money help the less fortunate.
We see that in the tax reform that they passed.
The reform was to make our tax system less progressive and allow the rich to keep more of their money.
More houses, private jets, and yachts instead of health screenings for our citizens.
What's not to like?
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Unequal Treatment
If you consider the history of this country and try to decide what America is you might have a problem.
We have always had divisions between different world outlooks and even erupted into a deadly civil war because of them.
Are we in fact a melting pot or is a better analogy a buffet line of different choices?
From the very beginning the issues relate to the amount of power that should be invested in the Federal Government.
This is still the fundamental issue.
Are we a collection of 50 states with some shared interests or are we a single nation?
The answer is not clear.
Take education, something that we have historically treated as a local matter. However we switched it to a more national issue during the civil rights era as we realized not all citizens were being treated equally.
Recently we have seen some reversal of this allowing less federal oversight.
Should every citizen of this country be provided the same rights and opportunities or should it vary based on where you live?
If each State sets different standards it will obviously vary significantly.
Take creationism, a religious theory that is not based on any actual scientific evidence but espoused in bible. Should it be taught as an alternative to evolution, a scientific theory that is nearly universally agreed to?
It really wasn't that long ago that unequal treatment was a routine thing in many states.
Has it in fact gone away?
We have always had divisions between different world outlooks and even erupted into a deadly civil war because of them.
Are we in fact a melting pot or is a better analogy a buffet line of different choices?
From the very beginning the issues relate to the amount of power that should be invested in the Federal Government.
This is still the fundamental issue.
Are we a collection of 50 states with some shared interests or are we a single nation?
The answer is not clear.
Take education, something that we have historically treated as a local matter. However we switched it to a more national issue during the civil rights era as we realized not all citizens were being treated equally.
Recently we have seen some reversal of this allowing less federal oversight.
Should every citizen of this country be provided the same rights and opportunities or should it vary based on where you live?
If each State sets different standards it will obviously vary significantly.
Take creationism, a religious theory that is not based on any actual scientific evidence but espoused in bible. Should it be taught as an alternative to evolution, a scientific theory that is nearly universally agreed to?
It really wasn't that long ago that unequal treatment was a routine thing in many states.
Has it in fact gone away?
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Our Melting Pot
Some people react to the undocumented immigrants as if they are burglars breaking into this country to steal something.
However, all the statistics show they contribute far more than they use. Generally because of their status they pay taxes but don't qualify for benefits. Yes they may use education and health resources, but once again they are paying taxes and contributing to the economy by doing jobs that most Americans don't want.
The math is hard because they are undocumented, but they certainly aren't the parasites painted by certain biased media and the dontard.
Consider the majority who come here to have a better life, or work seasonally to make some money. They are no threat to our way of life and n fact some of our industries depend on them to function.
If you were to construct more barriers you might deter some or you might make the cost of getting here greater. The barriers will not stop them and I'm not sure we even want to. Keeping our seasonal workers and poor families who want a better life is hardly much of a goal.
Of course some of the people violating the border do smuggle drugs. Mostly those they don't do it in the wilderness, they come through our points of entry.
Drug smuggling, like prohibition was, is so profitable that new and better ways will always be found. Any kind of barrier will have no impact on it at all.
Do terrorists come across our Southern border? There is no evidence that they do, at least in any meaningful numbers.
Our pretense about border security is really a cover up for ethnocentric bigotry. A certain percentage of our population believes that America should remain pure. They ignore the fact that this purity, if it ever existed, went away ages ago.
Our history is a story of immigration with our current America a melting pot of many cultures and peoples. Adding more people to it is simply going to make the product richer.
At one time people wanted to keep the ancestors of many of us out, because they were different.
Imagine if they had succeeded.
However, all the statistics show they contribute far more than they use. Generally because of their status they pay taxes but don't qualify for benefits. Yes they may use education and health resources, but once again they are paying taxes and contributing to the economy by doing jobs that most Americans don't want.
The math is hard because they are undocumented, but they certainly aren't the parasites painted by certain biased media and the dontard.
Consider the majority who come here to have a better life, or work seasonally to make some money. They are no threat to our way of life and n fact some of our industries depend on them to function.
If you were to construct more barriers you might deter some or you might make the cost of getting here greater. The barriers will not stop them and I'm not sure we even want to. Keeping our seasonal workers and poor families who want a better life is hardly much of a goal.
Of course some of the people violating the border do smuggle drugs. Mostly those they don't do it in the wilderness, they come through our points of entry.
Drug smuggling, like prohibition was, is so profitable that new and better ways will always be found. Any kind of barrier will have no impact on it at all.
Do terrorists come across our Southern border? There is no evidence that they do, at least in any meaningful numbers.
Our pretense about border security is really a cover up for ethnocentric bigotry. A certain percentage of our population believes that America should remain pure. They ignore the fact that this purity, if it ever existed, went away ages ago.
Our history is a story of immigration with our current America a melting pot of many cultures and peoples. Adding more people to it is simply going to make the product richer.
At one time people wanted to keep the ancestors of many of us out, because they were different.
Imagine if they had succeeded.
Monday, January 21, 2019
MLK Day
This is Martin Luther King day the best remembered leader of the civil rights movement.
That movement was effective in that it would be hard to find any areas in the country today where civil rights vary based on the color of your skin, at least officially.
There are still places where certain people are not welcome, it just isn't codified.
What hasn't happened is an elimination of racism in this country.
I do believe that it has improved and I think many of our younger people are growing up in a better environment.
Still you see incidents that are discouraging and make you wonder if we are ever going to really become a single country.
It seems like we have taken a step or two backward as we see a major political party embrace positions that at the very least encourage the worst instincts of some of our citizens.
We have free speech in this country and this allows bigots and racists to spout their hate publicly.
Its not just the color of your skin or even you religion anymore, we see the net spread wider and wider.
We now have started to hate people who simply disagree about what's best for the country.
Not sure how this gets turned around, Maybe a leader can unite us. I thought the last president spread a good message but it fell on a lot of deaf ears.
We can only hope.
The best way to celebrate today would be to think about equality for all.
Its worth a shot.
That movement was effective in that it would be hard to find any areas in the country today where civil rights vary based on the color of your skin, at least officially.
There are still places where certain people are not welcome, it just isn't codified.
What hasn't happened is an elimination of racism in this country.
I do believe that it has improved and I think many of our younger people are growing up in a better environment.
Still you see incidents that are discouraging and make you wonder if we are ever going to really become a single country.
It seems like we have taken a step or two backward as we see a major political party embrace positions that at the very least encourage the worst instincts of some of our citizens.
We have free speech in this country and this allows bigots and racists to spout their hate publicly.
Its not just the color of your skin or even you religion anymore, we see the net spread wider and wider.
We now have started to hate people who simply disagree about what's best for the country.
Not sure how this gets turned around, Maybe a leader can unite us. I thought the last president spread a good message but it fell on a lot of deaf ears.
We can only hope.
The best way to celebrate today would be to think about equality for all.
Its worth a shot.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Offering Nothing
There are offers and generally the best way to hammer out a deal is by talking to the other side nd working the details.
What we saw yesterday was a public relations attempt to sell a position that the polls show the American people don't want by wrapping it around some things that they do like, but not really offering anything.
The thing they don't want is a wall, as all the polls clearly show.
The wall does not solve any of the problems the dontard talked about, the dangerous trip to the border in central America, the importation of drugs, the exploitation by smugglers who prey on the desperate. It would in fact probably increase the last one as they could point to it as a reason they are needed.
The things Americans do favor, protection of dreamers and refugees is currently something the courts are deciding. Right now the courts are already stopping the attempted change to the policies and how long that will continue is anyone's guess, it might be permanent.
So three years of what is already the situation is, well, three years of nothing.
The other things he mentioned are already part of a bill that the democrats favor and all he has to do is sign it and the other funding bills to open the Government and move on.
It is certainly possible that some barriers in strategic locations could be agreed to once the Government is open, it should be based on careful analysis and data, not the whims of a dontard.
The public relations of all this is to give the impression that the dontard has made the first move and that the democrats now need to reciprocate. What is being ignored is that they have already offered most of the effective measures he mentioned and want permanent solutions to the dreamer and refugee issues.
This was no offer at all, just a public relations ploy. We need to see it for what it is.
Nothing at all.
What we saw yesterday was a public relations attempt to sell a position that the polls show the American people don't want by wrapping it around some things that they do like, but not really offering anything.
The thing they don't want is a wall, as all the polls clearly show.
The wall does not solve any of the problems the dontard talked about, the dangerous trip to the border in central America, the importation of drugs, the exploitation by smugglers who prey on the desperate. It would in fact probably increase the last one as they could point to it as a reason they are needed.
The things Americans do favor, protection of dreamers and refugees is currently something the courts are deciding. Right now the courts are already stopping the attempted change to the policies and how long that will continue is anyone's guess, it might be permanent.
So three years of what is already the situation is, well, three years of nothing.
The other things he mentioned are already part of a bill that the democrats favor and all he has to do is sign it and the other funding bills to open the Government and move on.
It is certainly possible that some barriers in strategic locations could be agreed to once the Government is open, it should be based on careful analysis and data, not the whims of a dontard.
The public relations of all this is to give the impression that the dontard has made the first move and that the democrats now need to reciprocate. What is being ignored is that they have already offered most of the effective measures he mentioned and want permanent solutions to the dreamer and refugee issues.
This was no offer at all, just a public relations ploy. We need to see it for what it is.
Nothing at all.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Economy?
Sometimes I wonder if the American economy is sustainable?
It has become largely a consumer economy where economic prosperity relies upon people shopping.
The more optimistic they feel the more they shop.
We see the impact of negative news in how fast the economy can go from boom to crises.
The last financial crisis was a result of the sub prime mortgages. Effectively, as long as home prices were going up, or, people believed they were, the loans were safe, since the property that secured them was worth more than the debt. Than they weren't.
Once the crisis hit property values plummeted, wealth disappeared, and we went into a deep recession which we only sort of got out of with a lot of Government stimulus.
Some of that continues and in fact our new administration added some in the form of corporate tax breaks.
However, the economy strikes me as very fragile.
While unemployment is low, a lot of the employed are underemployed, meaning they used to have better jobs.
Workforce participation is still low by historical standards meaning fewer and fewer support more and more.
The deficit and the national debt are exploding and student debt imposes a burden on our young people.
It just wouldn't take much to see much of the economy collapse.
When you look underneath it you see the supports are starting to fail.
It has become largely a consumer economy where economic prosperity relies upon people shopping.
The more optimistic they feel the more they shop.
We see the impact of negative news in how fast the economy can go from boom to crises.
The last financial crisis was a result of the sub prime mortgages. Effectively, as long as home prices were going up, or, people believed they were, the loans were safe, since the property that secured them was worth more than the debt. Than they weren't.
Once the crisis hit property values plummeted, wealth disappeared, and we went into a deep recession which we only sort of got out of with a lot of Government stimulus.
Some of that continues and in fact our new administration added some in the form of corporate tax breaks.
However, the economy strikes me as very fragile.
While unemployment is low, a lot of the employed are underemployed, meaning they used to have better jobs.
Workforce participation is still low by historical standards meaning fewer and fewer support more and more.
The deficit and the national debt are exploding and student debt imposes a burden on our young people.
It just wouldn't take much to see much of the economy collapse.
When you look underneath it you see the supports are starting to fail.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Dealmaker?
The refusal of the dontard to sign the funding bills is based on an apparent miscalculation on his part, certainly not his first.
He assumed the democrats would act like the adults in the room and let him have his way.
He must be as frustrated as the tantrum throwing toddler the first time that tactic doesn't work.
It leaves no options except to grow up.
Being untrustworthy, he is being required to put up before any concessions are made. He has backed out of a number of agreements before including the very same spending proposals now available.
When you word loses value you have to pay up front.
He also has the distraction of watching those who he selected to work for him start to sell him out.
Everyone is now used to how these people who were hand selected by the dontard who was of course the best at that are now being called self serving liars.
His behavior towards everyone who is not him inspires no loyalty.
He only cares about himself. He was never loyal in his marriages, not even the current one. His view of the world is based on his own character or lack of it, so of course everyone else is also a self serving egoist.
It isn't a good thing for an actual deal maker.
He assumed the democrats would act like the adults in the room and let him have his way.
He must be as frustrated as the tantrum throwing toddler the first time that tactic doesn't work.
It leaves no options except to grow up.
Being untrustworthy, he is being required to put up before any concessions are made. He has backed out of a number of agreements before including the very same spending proposals now available.
When you word loses value you have to pay up front.
He also has the distraction of watching those who he selected to work for him start to sell him out.
Everyone is now used to how these people who were hand selected by the dontard who was of course the best at that are now being called self serving liars.
His behavior towards everyone who is not him inspires no loyalty.
He only cares about himself. He was never loyal in his marriages, not even the current one. His view of the world is based on his own character or lack of it, so of course everyone else is also a self serving egoist.
It isn't a good thing for an actual deal maker.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Unpaid Labor
So the dontard doesn't want the shut down to inconvenience any of his supporters or too many Americans, so he has required more of the locked out employees to work on the promise of future reimbursement.
The mote he mitigates the impact of the shutdown the less reason he has to sign the appropriation bills and try to persuade America we need a wall.
Its a ridiculous situation in the first place where you can fail to fund the Government and avoid the consequences.
If failure to fund the Government resulted in the real consequences, it wouldn't happen.
Shutting down the TSA, the Coast Guard, the IRS etc. would not be tolerated.
It doesn't even seem like it can be constitutional OK since slavery is abolished to make people work without pay. There is a promise to pay after the shut down but by making them work you are prolonging it by reducing the impact.
Whether you believe we need a wall or not we should all be outraged by how the brunt of this is on the workers and their families who have bills and expenses now.
The situation on the border is no more of a crisis now than it has been, if it is a crisis.
Convince the American people and their representatives we need a wall and it will be built.
It is pretty clear from the last election we don't think it is needed.
Elections have consequences after all.
The mote he mitigates the impact of the shutdown the less reason he has to sign the appropriation bills and try to persuade America we need a wall.
Its a ridiculous situation in the first place where you can fail to fund the Government and avoid the consequences.
If failure to fund the Government resulted in the real consequences, it wouldn't happen.
Shutting down the TSA, the Coast Guard, the IRS etc. would not be tolerated.
It doesn't even seem like it can be constitutional OK since slavery is abolished to make people work without pay. There is a promise to pay after the shut down but by making them work you are prolonging it by reducing the impact.
Whether you believe we need a wall or not we should all be outraged by how the brunt of this is on the workers and their families who have bills and expenses now.
The situation on the border is no more of a crisis now than it has been, if it is a crisis.
Convince the American people and their representatives we need a wall and it will be built.
It is pretty clear from the last election we don't think it is needed.
Elections have consequences after all.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Race and Sterotypes
How many Americans are racists? I was reading a story about something on the view when one of the panelists asked the other if she thought 42% of Americans were racists. The other responded that she didn't know.
That number might be too low.
I don't mean burning cross racism, just racism absorbed growing up in this country.
In fact the worst form might be the one embedded in many liberals who think they know what minorities need.
You see a lot of comments on social media that reveal a level of racism where the commenter's might not even be aware of how racist they are.
When I see people complain about how a neighborhood has gone downhill and isn't safe anymore, I have to wonder if it is simply because the people there are now different?
It is possible that it is related to issues such as crime or poorly maintained buildings, but much of that is related to racism.
Partially because of lower economic opportunities you see a correlation between the ethnic composition of an area and crime rates.
People are people and everyone shares basic human instincts.
Many of us feel like some people are different. If you talk about any group of people as them you might have that issue.
Once you think of people as belonging to a different group you have to assume certain attributes to that group. Group stereotypes are always bad even if they sound OK. One group excels at math, enough is good with money another has better athletic skills.
Individuals have skills and attributes, not groups. Stereotypes get reinforced when someone in that group exhibits the expected characteristic. We ignore the ones that don't fit.
Each person is unique and should be evaluated as such.
Except of course the rich. As F. Scott pointed out, they are different than you and I.
That number might be too low.
I don't mean burning cross racism, just racism absorbed growing up in this country.
In fact the worst form might be the one embedded in many liberals who think they know what minorities need.
You see a lot of comments on social media that reveal a level of racism where the commenter's might not even be aware of how racist they are.
When I see people complain about how a neighborhood has gone downhill and isn't safe anymore, I have to wonder if it is simply because the people there are now different?
It is possible that it is related to issues such as crime or poorly maintained buildings, but much of that is related to racism.
Partially because of lower economic opportunities you see a correlation between the ethnic composition of an area and crime rates.
People are people and everyone shares basic human instincts.
Many of us feel like some people are different. If you talk about any group of people as them you might have that issue.
Once you think of people as belonging to a different group you have to assume certain attributes to that group. Group stereotypes are always bad even if they sound OK. One group excels at math, enough is good with money another has better athletic skills.
Individuals have skills and attributes, not groups. Stereotypes get reinforced when someone in that group exhibits the expected characteristic. We ignore the ones that don't fit.
Each person is unique and should be evaluated as such.
Except of course the rich. As F. Scott pointed out, they are different than you and I.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
All In
Its pretty obvious that the dontard has gone all-in on the wall.
In poker, if you go all-in, you bet all your chips and wait for the outcome of the hand. You have no more moves you can make, you can't bet and you can't fold, so you sit back and see what happens.
Unfortunately the outcome in the current situation is not going to end without some involvement by him.
He is convinced that if he gives in on the wall, his base will desert him.
Since his chances at re-election require his base to support him to have any chance, he has made his play.
Since his only actual concern relates to how things impact him, the fact that Government workers and the public are impacted by the senseless shut down doesn't bother him.
In fact he counts on those who do care to have to concede.
So the current hand will be decided by whether the Democrats or the Republicans in the Senate feel more pressure.
Many Republicans are more concerned about primary challenges in 2020 than they are about the actual election.
The primaries are where the dontard's base has the most impact.
The democrats on the other hand have a lot at stake as the first act they take can't be seen as betraying their electorate.
So neither side has any incentive to move, and it will require public opinion to sway one side or the other.
The shutdown continues in the meantime.
In poker, if you go all-in, you bet all your chips and wait for the outcome of the hand. You have no more moves you can make, you can't bet and you can't fold, so you sit back and see what happens.
Unfortunately the outcome in the current situation is not going to end without some involvement by him.
He is convinced that if he gives in on the wall, his base will desert him.
Since his chances at re-election require his base to support him to have any chance, he has made his play.
Since his only actual concern relates to how things impact him, the fact that Government workers and the public are impacted by the senseless shut down doesn't bother him.
In fact he counts on those who do care to have to concede.
So the current hand will be decided by whether the Democrats or the Republicans in the Senate feel more pressure.
Many Republicans are more concerned about primary challenges in 2020 than they are about the actual election.
The primaries are where the dontard's base has the most impact.
The democrats on the other hand have a lot at stake as the first act they take can't be seen as betraying their electorate.
So neither side has any incentive to move, and it will require public opinion to sway one side or the other.
The shutdown continues in the meantime.
Monday, January 14, 2019
No Money for the Wall
Its pretty clear that when the dontard talks about negotiating with him he means you have to give him what he wants.
The spending bills that were previously passed by the Senate and which have now been passed by the House are bipartisan and include money for border security, just not a wall.
Only one of the spending bills even has anything to do with the wall.
His idea of negotiations was on display the last time the two sides met (last Wednesday) when he asked Nancy Pelosi if she would approve the money for the wall, she said no, he walked out.
The House has approved all the spending bills needed but the Senate now refuses to bring them up.
Clearly they would pass which would force the dontard to sign or veto.
He went from being proud to shutting down the Government to trying to shift the blame.
The House has passed the bills the Senate needs to bring them to the floor and if they pass he need to sign them.
They contain negotiated amounts which everyone (well the great majority) agreed to, but Homeland Security doesn't include a wall.
In his idiocy he thinks what the wall is made of makes any difference. Its the cost of the wall which was never supposed to be paid by American taxpayers in the first place.
In terms of our Government, the amount isn't much percentage wise, but it is only a down payment.
The total cost is probably over $50bilion if funded to completion.
Money that we don't actually have thanks to the record deficits under this administration.
There is no money for this wall.
The spending bills that were previously passed by the Senate and which have now been passed by the House are bipartisan and include money for border security, just not a wall.
Only one of the spending bills even has anything to do with the wall.
His idea of negotiations was on display the last time the two sides met (last Wednesday) when he asked Nancy Pelosi if she would approve the money for the wall, she said no, he walked out.
The House has approved all the spending bills needed but the Senate now refuses to bring them up.
Clearly they would pass which would force the dontard to sign or veto.
He went from being proud to shutting down the Government to trying to shift the blame.
The House has passed the bills the Senate needs to bring them to the floor and if they pass he need to sign them.
They contain negotiated amounts which everyone (well the great majority) agreed to, but Homeland Security doesn't include a wall.
In his idiocy he thinks what the wall is made of makes any difference. Its the cost of the wall which was never supposed to be paid by American taxpayers in the first place.
In terms of our Government, the amount isn't much percentage wise, but it is only a down payment.
The total cost is probably over $50bilion if funded to completion.
Money that we don't actually have thanks to the record deficits under this administration.
There is no money for this wall.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Cornered
One of the things that shouldn't be forgotten is that the Senate and the President are refusing to act on funding bills that have nothing to do with the wall.
Funding for border security, which would include any border barriers, would be in the Homeland Security funding bill. However the other agencies being held hostage are not part of that.
So the "ready to sign" tweets are simply a lie. He could certainly sign all the others and hold up the one that would have the wall money.
He won't do that because he needs his shutdown to cause the maximum disruption.
Now of course were he to do that he would be accused by certain hard liners of giving up.
He has in some respects painted himself into a corner and his options are limited.
He also is apparently getting mixed advice on declaring a National Emergency, which he has threatened to do.
He probably knows that in the long run it won't work to fund the wall.
It would get the Government open, assuming at that point he signs the funding bills.
He wants to come out of this so he can campaign on how he defeated the Democrats and made them fund his wall.
He apparently can't distinguish them from Mexico who was absolutely positively 100 going to fund the wall.
Either way, they won't.
Funding for border security, which would include any border barriers, would be in the Homeland Security funding bill. However the other agencies being held hostage are not part of that.
So the "ready to sign" tweets are simply a lie. He could certainly sign all the others and hold up the one that would have the wall money.
He won't do that because he needs his shutdown to cause the maximum disruption.
Now of course were he to do that he would be accused by certain hard liners of giving up.
He has in some respects painted himself into a corner and his options are limited.
He also is apparently getting mixed advice on declaring a National Emergency, which he has threatened to do.
He probably knows that in the long run it won't work to fund the wall.
It would get the Government open, assuming at that point he signs the funding bills.
He wants to come out of this so he can campaign on how he defeated the Democrats and made them fund his wall.
He apparently can't distinguish them from Mexico who was absolutely positively 100 going to fund the wall.
Either way, they won't.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Setting a Record
Well this is officially the longest Government shutdown ever.
Both houses have passed bills to give backpay to furloughed federal employees when the shutdown ends, so the silliness of the current position grows.
When there is something you want that the opposition doesn't you can bargain or convince. Taking hostages is not considered a sensible outcome and then guaranteeing the well being of the hostages is giving up that advantage.
Because of certain media pressure we see the dontard has painted himself into a corner. Losing the House of Representatives certainly makes achieving his goal of a wall more difficult, but he had two years when congress was held by Republicans.
In fact, he had a deal that would have funded his wall but provided dreamers protection, but his anti immigration backers killed it.
Every party has numerous factions and the goal of politics is to get them to represent some sort of consistent approach. If you allow each faction veto power, which the dontard effectively has, you will never achieve much of anything, which is pretty obvious.
If your goal is to achieve nothing, its a good strategy.
If your goal is to go down as the most ineffective president ever, once again, good strategy.
Not good for the country, but some of his factions are convinced that organized Government is the real enemy and he is making them happy.
If you want to achieve better border security not so much.
Both houses have passed bills to give backpay to furloughed federal employees when the shutdown ends, so the silliness of the current position grows.
When there is something you want that the opposition doesn't you can bargain or convince. Taking hostages is not considered a sensible outcome and then guaranteeing the well being of the hostages is giving up that advantage.
Because of certain media pressure we see the dontard has painted himself into a corner. Losing the House of Representatives certainly makes achieving his goal of a wall more difficult, but he had two years when congress was held by Republicans.
In fact, he had a deal that would have funded his wall but provided dreamers protection, but his anti immigration backers killed it.
Every party has numerous factions and the goal of politics is to get them to represent some sort of consistent approach. If you allow each faction veto power, which the dontard effectively has, you will never achieve much of anything, which is pretty obvious.
If your goal is to achieve nothing, its a good strategy.
If your goal is to go down as the most ineffective president ever, once again, good strategy.
Not good for the country, but some of his factions are convinced that organized Government is the real enemy and he is making them happy.
If you want to achieve better border security not so much.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Credit Histories
Today is the day that the workers who are either idled or forced to work without pay, miss the first paycheck.
Up to now it really has been more academic, because even if you live paycheck to paycheck, that's only a problem when you don't get one.
Today is that day.
It will be different for everyone impacted but I imagine it will have common themes.
Bills due for the first half of January don't have the expected back deposit to pay them.
Some will have enough savings, others might get short term loans, others who are enrolled in automatic payments may or may not have turned them off.
The credit card bills from Christmas are likely going to get the minimum payments so interest will accumulate.
Some payments will simply not be made, causing a black mark on credit histories that will remain for quite a while.
Even considering that at some point the back pay will show up for most of the employees (some wont because of employment situations) you have to deal with the bills now. Also, it isn't looking good for the next round of bills.
Add to that the people who work with these federal agencies who may also have been furloughed (and who generally won't get back pay) and you have managed to disrupt well over a million workers and their families.
You have to consider that the economies where they live are also impacted as they aren't spending as much as they normally would.
Things like this have happened before, in labor disputes, company bankruptcies, etc. It is always painful for those involved.
The issue here is why? Most of them work for agencies with no involvement in immigrations.
It really is the same as a terrorist holding innocent people hostage to get something they want.
In this case the people actually work for the president in the executive branch.
Sort of ironic.
Up to now it really has been more academic, because even if you live paycheck to paycheck, that's only a problem when you don't get one.
Today is that day.
It will be different for everyone impacted but I imagine it will have common themes.
Bills due for the first half of January don't have the expected back deposit to pay them.
Some will have enough savings, others might get short term loans, others who are enrolled in automatic payments may or may not have turned them off.
The credit card bills from Christmas are likely going to get the minimum payments so interest will accumulate.
Some payments will simply not be made, causing a black mark on credit histories that will remain for quite a while.
Even considering that at some point the back pay will show up for most of the employees (some wont because of employment situations) you have to deal with the bills now. Also, it isn't looking good for the next round of bills.
Add to that the people who work with these federal agencies who may also have been furloughed (and who generally won't get back pay) and you have managed to disrupt well over a million workers and their families.
You have to consider that the economies where they live are also impacted as they aren't spending as much as they normally would.
Things like this have happened before, in labor disputes, company bankruptcies, etc. It is always painful for those involved.
The issue here is why? Most of them work for agencies with no involvement in immigrations.
It really is the same as a terrorist holding innocent people hostage to get something they want.
In this case the people actually work for the president in the executive branch.
Sort of ironic.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Is A Compromise Posible?
We seem to have no middle ground available in the current dispute over the wall.
It wasn't that long ago that there was an agreement that involved the wall and the Dreamers but it was stopped by some hard liners.
Could it be resurrected giving some money for extra border security but resolving the issue related to DACA?
It would give both sides something but both sides have problems with "hard liners".
There is an effort going on with some :moderate" republican senators to fashion a deal.
It actually isn't that hard to do if both sides can behave logically and with some flexibility.
However if the wall is anathema one side and Dreamer path to citizenship is anathema to the other, a deal becomes unlikely.
Sadly both sides are now held hostage by the extreme elements in their parties who weld outsize influence in the primaries.
Still surprises do happen and we should be hoping that the Government is reopened and the issue is resolved.
It wasn't that long ago that there was an agreement that involved the wall and the Dreamers but it was stopped by some hard liners.
Could it be resurrected giving some money for extra border security but resolving the issue related to DACA?
It would give both sides something but both sides have problems with "hard liners".
There is an effort going on with some :moderate" republican senators to fashion a deal.
It actually isn't that hard to do if both sides can behave logically and with some flexibility.
However if the wall is anathema one side and Dreamer path to citizenship is anathema to the other, a deal becomes unlikely.
Sadly both sides are now held hostage by the extreme elements in their parties who weld outsize influence in the primaries.
Still surprises do happen and we should be hoping that the Government is reopened and the issue is resolved.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Honesty?
Even if you agree that a border wall might be effective, is it worth disrupting the lives of 800,000 people and their families?
Many of these employees are being asked to work with the promise of future pay and others are being told to stay home with no promise of future payment, although precedent says they likely will get paid.
Some people feel federal workers are part of "the problem" and they may be sitting back taking pleasure at the disruption in their lives. The people impacted are just the workers in the system who perform jobs that are certainly necessary to all of us, like airport security, tax services, national parks and many others.
They are going to miss a paycheck and many of them are not going to be able to pay bills without some sort of assistance.
One paycheck is pretty disruptive for most of us, and there is no sign that this is ending anytime soon.
Clearly the dontard realizes he can never get enough support to fund his foolish wall without resorting to blackmail, but the blackmail isn't working.
Maybe his shrinking base still backs his tactics, but even many of them recognize that they are creating victims.
His attempt to sway public opinion to his side was predictably unsuccessful as his appeal is limited to a rather narrow audience, that don't have the desire or inclination to consider if his claims are true.
He gets away with this to some extent at his rallies filled with unquestioning supporters, but it doesn't translate in the rest of the world.
We prefer honesty.
Many of these employees are being asked to work with the promise of future pay and others are being told to stay home with no promise of future payment, although precedent says they likely will get paid.
Some people feel federal workers are part of "the problem" and they may be sitting back taking pleasure at the disruption in their lives. The people impacted are just the workers in the system who perform jobs that are certainly necessary to all of us, like airport security, tax services, national parks and many others.
They are going to miss a paycheck and many of them are not going to be able to pay bills without some sort of assistance.
One paycheck is pretty disruptive for most of us, and there is no sign that this is ending anytime soon.
Clearly the dontard realizes he can never get enough support to fund his foolish wall without resorting to blackmail, but the blackmail isn't working.
Maybe his shrinking base still backs his tactics, but even many of them recognize that they are creating victims.
His attempt to sway public opinion to his side was predictably unsuccessful as his appeal is limited to a rather narrow audience, that don't have the desire or inclination to consider if his claims are true.
He gets away with this to some extent at his rallies filled with unquestioning supporters, but it doesn't translate in the rest of the world.
We prefer honesty.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Not A Crisis
Whatever is happening our Southern Border, it simply isn't a crisis.
At least not in the traditional use of that term.
Nothing has happened that would have changed the situation in any dramatic way and having asylum seekers applying for asylum is not a crisis.
I suspect we will hear a lot of exaggerated claims about terrorists and gangs coming across the border, evidence of which is lacking and still not a crisis.
Even if you consider the situation on the border bad for America it simply doesn't meet the definition of a crisis, although admittedly that term is often misused.
Generally to be a crisis the event should be sudden and significant. The Southern Border situation is certainly not sudden, and whether it is significant or not may be debatable.
Nothing sudden about what is going on and there is very little evidence that what is going on there is actually negative.
People entering the country without proper documentation can be defined as negative, but if their actions after arriving here is to contribute to the economy in a positive way, it might not be a long term negative.
One of the things that I expect to see tonight is examples of undocumented immigrants who did bad things.
I would argue that you could find at least as many examples of them doing good things.
They are after all just people, not really any different than any group of people.
Just not a crisis.
At least not in the traditional use of that term.
Nothing has happened that would have changed the situation in any dramatic way and having asylum seekers applying for asylum is not a crisis.
I suspect we will hear a lot of exaggerated claims about terrorists and gangs coming across the border, evidence of which is lacking and still not a crisis.
Even if you consider the situation on the border bad for America it simply doesn't meet the definition of a crisis, although admittedly that term is often misused.
Generally to be a crisis the event should be sudden and significant. The Southern Border situation is certainly not sudden, and whether it is significant or not may be debatable.
Nothing sudden about what is going on and there is very little evidence that what is going on there is actually negative.
People entering the country without proper documentation can be defined as negative, but if their actions after arriving here is to contribute to the economy in a positive way, it might not be a long term negative.
One of the things that I expect to see tonight is examples of undocumented immigrants who did bad things.
I would argue that you could find at least as many examples of them doing good things.
They are after all just people, not really any different than any group of people.
Just not a crisis.
Monday, January 7, 2019
America First
I was watching a discussion show and one of the "conservative" panelists made a comment about how the current president at least always wants what's best for America.
Not sure that is true, think he is all about himself, but what struck me was how the other panelists didn't respond to this insulting comment that implies some of us don't want what's best for America.
This is unfortunately part of the problem I see in a lot of these discussions, a concession that somehow repressive and economically questionable policies are good for America.
Take trade. You can argue about the pluses and minuses of any articular deal but to contend they were negotiated to hurt America is insulting.
As a believer in free trade I believe it clearly is in America's best interests to trade freely with the world to the greatest extent possible. Such trade may hurt some Americans but benefit many more with lower prices, more efficient industries and the ability to focus on the areas we are best in.
We should of course help those who might lose their jobs because they work in non-competitive industries, but if you interfere with the economics, you effectively impose a tax on the rest of us to create inefficient jobs for a few. This is not in the best interests of America and is probably not even in the best interests of those you think you are helping since the situation is unsustainable and when it ends there will be less opportunities for them.
America needs to continue to progress and continue to thrive in the world economy.
It also needs to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens by protecting the climate, supporting its allies and opposing terrorism and tyranny.
Investments in those areas are in America's best interests, they will prevent tragedy in the future.
Its best for America to continue to celebrate its freedoms, such as free speech, but even when I disagree about a policy, I can accept the other side is promoting what they think is best for America.
Its insulting to imply anything else.
Not sure that is true, think he is all about himself, but what struck me was how the other panelists didn't respond to this insulting comment that implies some of us don't want what's best for America.
This is unfortunately part of the problem I see in a lot of these discussions, a concession that somehow repressive and economically questionable policies are good for America.
Take trade. You can argue about the pluses and minuses of any articular deal but to contend they were negotiated to hurt America is insulting.
As a believer in free trade I believe it clearly is in America's best interests to trade freely with the world to the greatest extent possible. Such trade may hurt some Americans but benefit many more with lower prices, more efficient industries and the ability to focus on the areas we are best in.
We should of course help those who might lose their jobs because they work in non-competitive industries, but if you interfere with the economics, you effectively impose a tax on the rest of us to create inefficient jobs for a few. This is not in the best interests of America and is probably not even in the best interests of those you think you are helping since the situation is unsustainable and when it ends there will be less opportunities for them.
America needs to continue to progress and continue to thrive in the world economy.
It also needs to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens by protecting the climate, supporting its allies and opposing terrorism and tyranny.
Investments in those areas are in America's best interests, they will prevent tragedy in the future.
Its best for America to continue to celebrate its freedoms, such as free speech, but even when I disagree about a policy, I can accept the other side is promoting what they think is best for America.
Its insulting to imply anything else.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
Economic Musing
We had a good job report for December and while that is encouraging, not everything is wonderful.
Looking at the report, available here Employment Report, it still seems like a continuation of the recovery started under the previous administration, which is fine, but not a booming economy.
Anyone can draw their own conclusions but it seems like the new economic reality for this country continues to clarify.
The days of doing well by just showing up are in the past. The millions of jobs that used to filled by people acting like automatons are now filled by automatons.
You need to develop skills to do well and if you do the rewards can be significant.
If you don't the jobs and pay available are going to be barely enough to get by in this country.
Income inequality has continued to increase. You need to hone skills that are needed or become an entrepreneur to succeed.
This is part of the problem that has permeated our society as we have a large group of people who feel under represented.
Many working Americans feel that Government helps the very poor and of course the wealthy people are doing OK, but they struggle to survive with little help or much of a future.
They can get jobs, but the jobs they get don't provide the lifestyle they see as the average American one, so they work multiple jobs.
They don't feel that the taxes they pay are doing anything for them (although they probably are) and they can't save for retirement, can't afford to send their children to college and live paycheck to paycheck.
They are told by certain media outlets that they are the forgotten Americans who are left out in the cold while the poor and immigrants get assistance.
The real solution to their issues is better income distribution. The best way to achieve that is via a progressive agenda, but for many reasons, they generally oppose that.
So the economy continues on much like it has,, the rich get richer and the others don't.
Looking at the report, available here Employment Report, it still seems like a continuation of the recovery started under the previous administration, which is fine, but not a booming economy.
Anyone can draw their own conclusions but it seems like the new economic reality for this country continues to clarify.
The days of doing well by just showing up are in the past. The millions of jobs that used to filled by people acting like automatons are now filled by automatons.
You need to develop skills to do well and if you do the rewards can be significant.
If you don't the jobs and pay available are going to be barely enough to get by in this country.
Income inequality has continued to increase. You need to hone skills that are needed or become an entrepreneur to succeed.
This is part of the problem that has permeated our society as we have a large group of people who feel under represented.
Many working Americans feel that Government helps the very poor and of course the wealthy people are doing OK, but they struggle to survive with little help or much of a future.
They can get jobs, but the jobs they get don't provide the lifestyle they see as the average American one, so they work multiple jobs.
They don't feel that the taxes they pay are doing anything for them (although they probably are) and they can't save for retirement, can't afford to send their children to college and live paycheck to paycheck.
They are told by certain media outlets that they are the forgotten Americans who are left out in the cold while the poor and immigrants get assistance.
The real solution to their issues is better income distribution. The best way to achieve that is via a progressive agenda, but for many reasons, they generally oppose that.
So the economy continues on much like it has,, the rich get richer and the others don't.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Thick as a Brick
One of the benefits of having a democrat controlled House is that they can actually pass legislation that people can review. Talking is one thing, but legislation, even if it might not get through the Senate or the President is another.
For example, they passed spending bills that would allow agencies not related to the Wall to resume operations using the agreed to bipartisan numbers that passed the Senate. The Senate is not going to take them up as of now and the President threatens a veto if they do. However, a reasonable approach to ending the shut down is now on the table and failure to act is clear.
As actual legislation gets debated and passed, it will start to shape public opinion. The public is tired of the current state of inertia in the Government and it should become clear where the problem is.
The Republican Senate needs to exert its legislative responsibility to the citizens of this country and not refuse to act because they toady to the President.
I'm not asking them to go against their principles, many of them realize the President proposes preposterous undoable things, but they have been humoring him.
He has his rabid supporters who can greatly influence Republican primaries. Still, most Americans respect a man of principle and this approach is going to doom many of them in the next election cycle.
Consider what is good for the real America, stand up for freedom, trade, agriculture, business and small government.
Or else become another brick in the wall.
For example, they passed spending bills that would allow agencies not related to the Wall to resume operations using the agreed to bipartisan numbers that passed the Senate. The Senate is not going to take them up as of now and the President threatens a veto if they do. However, a reasonable approach to ending the shut down is now on the table and failure to act is clear.
As actual legislation gets debated and passed, it will start to shape public opinion. The public is tired of the current state of inertia in the Government and it should become clear where the problem is.
The Republican Senate needs to exert its legislative responsibility to the citizens of this country and not refuse to act because they toady to the President.
I'm not asking them to go against their principles, many of them realize the President proposes preposterous undoable things, but they have been humoring him.
He has his rabid supporters who can greatly influence Republican primaries. Still, most Americans respect a man of principle and this approach is going to doom many of them in the next election cycle.
Consider what is good for the real America, stand up for freedom, trade, agriculture, business and small government.
Or else become another brick in the wall.
Friday, January 4, 2019
Shut Down Impacts
Its pretty much a certainty now that about 800,000 federal workers are going to not receive their next paycheck and it might extend over a considerable period of time.
Some of them are required to work because they are considered essential and the others are idled with some expectation of getting paid when the shutdown finally ends.
Right after the holidays the bills are often the highest as you have all the Christmas expenses as well as, of course, your normal ones, such as rent, mortgages, food, etc.
While it obviously varies to some extent in each situation, many are not going to have available savings to cover an extended period of non-pay.
This is the result of a demand for taxpayer money to build a wall most of us don't want.
One can certainly debate whether a wall or barriers work, they obviously would act as a bit of a detriment but they create their own issues. That debate however is clearly not going the presidents way as he wasn't able to get the money with a unified congress and now he has to deal with a democratic house.
What do the other Government agencies have to do with his pet project?
Most agencies impacted have bilateral spending agreements that could be passed and sign with no impact on the wall. The one agency that the wall money impacts could be handled differently.
Tax refunds, farm support, food stamps, national parks, FAA are impacted as hostages because the president wants to use them as a bargaining chip.
He is gambling with these peoples lives and in many cases making them work promising to pay them in the future.
It is going to have real impacts on every American in one way or another, want your tax refund?
There is a simple solution, but it doesn't include a wall that we weren't supposed to pay for in the first place.
Why?
Some of them are required to work because they are considered essential and the others are idled with some expectation of getting paid when the shutdown finally ends.
Right after the holidays the bills are often the highest as you have all the Christmas expenses as well as, of course, your normal ones, such as rent, mortgages, food, etc.
While it obviously varies to some extent in each situation, many are not going to have available savings to cover an extended period of non-pay.
This is the result of a demand for taxpayer money to build a wall most of us don't want.
One can certainly debate whether a wall or barriers work, they obviously would act as a bit of a detriment but they create their own issues. That debate however is clearly not going the presidents way as he wasn't able to get the money with a unified congress and now he has to deal with a democratic house.
What do the other Government agencies have to do with his pet project?
Most agencies impacted have bilateral spending agreements that could be passed and sign with no impact on the wall. The one agency that the wall money impacts could be handled differently.
Tax refunds, farm support, food stamps, national parks, FAA are impacted as hostages because the president wants to use them as a bargaining chip.
He is gambling with these peoples lives and in many cases making them work promising to pay them in the future.
It is going to have real impacts on every American in one way or another, want your tax refund?
There is a simple solution, but it doesn't include a wall that we weren't supposed to pay for in the first place.
Why?
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Fake News?
Fake news has become a term that is used quite frequently nowadays mostly as a way to simply deny some facts.
The great majority of news is not fake, but some is and the best way to distinguish is not by listening to politicians but to consider the source.
First, there are shows on "news" networks that are opinion shows, not news shows.
When someone on one of those shows announces something it doesn't have to live up to any journalistic standards and is primarily designed for entertainment and ratings.
A lot of it is simply speculative, and while they are entitled to do that it is incumbent on the viewer to realize the speculation, no matter how logical it might sound, is generally one sided and the facts, if any, presented were chosen to prove a point.
It is more in the line of an infomercial rather than a news story.
Still many viewers don't make those distinctions.
The vast majority of what is published in the mainstream media is in fact real news, although some mistakes and phony stories get published or aired.
The more reputable or recognized the more likely the screening is effective, but, there always is the make it interesting factor.
They want you to watch or read or listen to what they are putting on so they try to find the entertaining factors. So in many perfectly accurate news stories you will see something inserted such as in the opinion of x this means something dreadful is likely. This is actually true but that opinion may very well not be the only one or even the best one.
It is accurate that it is that person's opinion, so not fake news. Its the opinion that might be the problem.
Stick with the fact from a reputable source and form your own opinion, is probably the safest approach.
The great majority of news is not fake, but some is and the best way to distinguish is not by listening to politicians but to consider the source.
First, there are shows on "news" networks that are opinion shows, not news shows.
When someone on one of those shows announces something it doesn't have to live up to any journalistic standards and is primarily designed for entertainment and ratings.
A lot of it is simply speculative, and while they are entitled to do that it is incumbent on the viewer to realize the speculation, no matter how logical it might sound, is generally one sided and the facts, if any, presented were chosen to prove a point.
It is more in the line of an infomercial rather than a news story.
Still many viewers don't make those distinctions.
The vast majority of what is published in the mainstream media is in fact real news, although some mistakes and phony stories get published or aired.
The more reputable or recognized the more likely the screening is effective, but, there always is the make it interesting factor.
They want you to watch or read or listen to what they are putting on so they try to find the entertaining factors. So in many perfectly accurate news stories you will see something inserted such as in the opinion of x this means something dreadful is likely. This is actually true but that opinion may very well not be the only one or even the best one.
It is accurate that it is that person's opinion, so not fake news. Its the opinion that might be the problem.
Stick with the fact from a reputable source and form your own opinion, is probably the safest approach.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Politics or Policies?
WE are of to a quick start in the blame game as the Democrats are being blamed for preventing all the great policies the president wants.
Of course, it's debatable a to whether those policies are particularly good or if they are just politics.
Its fairly easy to define objectives that almost all Americans would agree with. Border Security would be one of them. The use of this phrase to mean build a wall isn't. Border Security is the prevention of undocumented crossing but in an efficient and affordable way.
Immigration is not much of a threat to this country, in fact it has always been one of the cornerstones of our growth. Still, almost every American would agree that it should be controlled and regulated.
Similarly, almost all Americans would agree that good affordable health care should be available to all. How to achieve that is the issue. Most countries have made this a Government obligation where it is provided at no point of service cost.(there is of course a cost that the taxpayers bear). It has been shown to bee efficient and effective, but it conflicts with our capitalistic system. The Affordable Care Act kept the private provider system and overlaid Government subsidies for those who qualified. It was a compromise that incorporated many republican features, but it didn't win over many republicans as politics became more important than outcomes. It did significantly reduce the number of uninsured in this country.
Issue after issue could also be addressed in a manner that would win the support of the great majority of Americans is we ignored politics and focused on policies. Take something like gun control. We have moved to an all or nothing approach, largely because of the lobbying of the NRA. Yet throughout our history we had restrictions of who could own a gun and where they could carry it, it just made sense. No citizen should be prevented from owning guns, if they pass a reasonable background check and take responsibility to control them. We do this with cars, motorcycles and boats, why not guns?
Its the politics and the great amount of money involved that prevent progress. We need to demand good policies, not bad politics.
Otherwise not much will happen.
Of course, it's debatable a to whether those policies are particularly good or if they are just politics.
Its fairly easy to define objectives that almost all Americans would agree with. Border Security would be one of them. The use of this phrase to mean build a wall isn't. Border Security is the prevention of undocumented crossing but in an efficient and affordable way.
Immigration is not much of a threat to this country, in fact it has always been one of the cornerstones of our growth. Still, almost every American would agree that it should be controlled and regulated.
Similarly, almost all Americans would agree that good affordable health care should be available to all. How to achieve that is the issue. Most countries have made this a Government obligation where it is provided at no point of service cost.(there is of course a cost that the taxpayers bear). It has been shown to bee efficient and effective, but it conflicts with our capitalistic system. The Affordable Care Act kept the private provider system and overlaid Government subsidies for those who qualified. It was a compromise that incorporated many republican features, but it didn't win over many republicans as politics became more important than outcomes. It did significantly reduce the number of uninsured in this country.
Issue after issue could also be addressed in a manner that would win the support of the great majority of Americans is we ignored politics and focused on policies. Take something like gun control. We have moved to an all or nothing approach, largely because of the lobbying of the NRA. Yet throughout our history we had restrictions of who could own a gun and where they could carry it, it just made sense. No citizen should be prevented from owning guns, if they pass a reasonable background check and take responsibility to control them. We do this with cars, motorcycles and boats, why not guns?
Its the politics and the great amount of money involved that prevent progress. We need to demand good policies, not bad politics.
Otherwise not much will happen.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Happy New Year
It would be nice if we could start the new year with a clean slate and a working government.
Unfortunately the government is probably as broken as it ever has been.
It doesn't seem likely that any big issues are going to get solved soon, so we will probably stumble along until the next big election in 2020.
Still, this is still a country of opportunity, although unfortunately, more and more, unequal opportunity.
It starts very young as the school you go to and the education you get is dependent on how much money your parents have and where they live.
If you grow up in a place where drugs and gangs offer the best path to success (at least material success) you are more likely to follow that path.
In many ways they are the perverted image of the American dream where anyone with skill, determination and luck can start at the bottom and rise to the top.
Assuming they survive and avoid prison.
Those two things provide plenty of vacancies on the way up.
Its a high risk path as opposed to the path in wealthy suburbs where students are groomed for the best colleges followed by traditional success opportunities.
Unfortunately most American occupy the area between these two strata, forced to overcome significant hurdles to get an education and often left with crippling student debt.
I've seen some recent studies that indicate success in life is more predetermined in America than it has ever been in the past. There is still some social mobility, just a lot less of it.
You are likely to end up pretty much in the same circumstances as your parents, with the exception of second generation immigrants.
Unfortunately the government is probably as broken as it ever has been.
It doesn't seem likely that any big issues are going to get solved soon, so we will probably stumble along until the next big election in 2020.
Still, this is still a country of opportunity, although unfortunately, more and more, unequal opportunity.
It starts very young as the school you go to and the education you get is dependent on how much money your parents have and where they live.
If you grow up in a place where drugs and gangs offer the best path to success (at least material success) you are more likely to follow that path.
In many ways they are the perverted image of the American dream where anyone with skill, determination and luck can start at the bottom and rise to the top.
Assuming they survive and avoid prison.
Those two things provide plenty of vacancies on the way up.
Its a high risk path as opposed to the path in wealthy suburbs where students are groomed for the best colleges followed by traditional success opportunities.
Unfortunately most American occupy the area between these two strata, forced to overcome significant hurdles to get an education and often left with crippling student debt.
I've seen some recent studies that indicate success in life is more predetermined in America than it has ever been in the past. There is still some social mobility, just a lot less of it.
You are likely to end up pretty much in the same circumstances as your parents, with the exception of second generation immigrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)