Sunday 3/30/14 Musings

We use a lot of limes in our house and have noticed how the price has ratcheted higher over the last few months.  Today, I read an article about how disease and unfortunate weather when Mexican lime trees were blossoming created the shortage.  Also, demand has picked up substantially over the years, so the supply shortage shows that the basic supply/demand curve has a fair degree of inelasticity in it.  In other words, buyers pay up rather than not purchase limes or switch to other citrus.

Timothy Egan discussed how scientists have known for decades that strip logging certain types of hills creates the conditions that can lead to mudslides.  It is disingenuous for political leaders to say they had no way of knowing a mud slide could happen.  The science was there to say it could happen, but there is no science to say when it will happen.  People make decisions all the time to risk their home and life to a natural disaster.  The state cannot tell them to not do that.  But then these people cannot blame the state when something bad happens.  And they should not look to the rest of us for some compensation for their loss of home.  That is what is happening with flood insurance and we cannot fix it for the same reason we cannot have prudent gun control.  Homeowners who benefit from Federal subsidized flood insurance can swing elections so politicians with beaches in their district refuse to sanction fully priced flood insurance.

What I keep thinking is that science denial is mostly about greed and a desire to brave the unknown odds in the belief either (i) that the government will provide a FEMA safety net or (ii) the voter will win the game during their lifetime and the price will be paid by a subsequent generation, so it is their problem, not the voter's.

Ross Douthat once again wrote about religion and how people feel about state provided benefits vs church provided benefits.  I don't see society that way, even though Douthat assumes as a securlarist  that I think state provided benefits are better.  This is a chicken and an egg discussion.  My religiousness, or lack thereof, did not start with one iota of thought about how I will get services.

I decided upon my beliefs independently long before I had any awareness about a social safety net (age 16 or 17).  Douthat thinks that a safety net was part and parcel of my thought process.  What I think about a social safety net, comes from an examination of reality and hard evidence that it is necessary for a state to provide a social safety net in this modern industrial world.  We cannot go back to the world of some ideal that never existed, poor people died early all the time in that world, and for Douthat to think we should be fighting in politics for this ideal that only existed in selected ways and never supported 100% of the population, just shows how even thoughtful Republicans can simply be wrong.  We need social policies that work for all.

Surprise, American's Want a Free Lunch

The AP wrote an article about how a majority of American's don't like ObamaCare and the main reason is the requirement that everybody buy health insurance.  Even if they want to have health insurance, they dislike the idea of forcing someone to buy it.  However, when asked if they think every drive should have car insurance, they say yes because they know the uninsured driver might hit them.

But continuing with the Poll, it also turns out that American's want to keep the ability of people with pre-existing conditions to buy affordable health insurance.  Well, anyone with an ounce of intelligence, knows that opens up the health insurance companies to the real potential cost of healthy people waiting until they are sick to buy health insurance.  And if that happens, the insurance companies can no longer afford to price health insurance at affordable prices.

I know this because this what NY State had before ObamaCare.  An individual policy cost $1,500 a month because there was no requirement for people to buy health insurance and there was no ability of the health insurance company to turn away people with pre-existing condition.  $1,500 a month is $18,000 a year for a single person and $36,000 for a married couple.  Add some more on for the kid or two and you have priced health insurance in the individual market out of the reach of anyone earning less than $100,000 or even more perhaps.  Remember, all these payments are made with after-tax $.

So when the GOP tells voters you can keep your requirement of insurance availability for pre-existing conditions, but we can do away with the requirement that everyone have health insurance, they are not telling the truth.  And, in fact, they are making it harder for themselves to come up with anything that is viable as a replacement for Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare.

What they are doing is pandering to the American voter's unending desire and belief that they can have a free lunch.  This is what Bush II did when he passed Medicare Pharmacy Coverage without paying for it, when he cut taxes and started 2 wars without paying for them, and when he cut funding for regulators and we got rampant fraud in the housing finance market and a near depression when it collapse.  The fiscally conservative GOP is no better than the Democrats when it comes to free lunch pandering; but at least the Democrats try to pay for it with revenues.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to be telling voters that there is no free lunch.  One way or another, the economics of everything have to work at all times.

Link to AP Story Summary on Politico

I am World Class

No, not as a blogger, although I like to think I am more thoughtful and balanced then many of those whose sights get thousands of hits.

I am a World Class iPhone Solitaire player.  Not as a scorer because scoring rewards speed and you have to be kid with really nimble thumb technique to world class as a scorer.  But I am in fewest moves.  When I win a game, I estimate I have a 20% chance of being in the top 10 fewest moves.  Usually only 1 to 3 moves separate people in the top 10 and I can be anywhere on the list, including first.  And sometimes I am the fewest by as much as 3 or 4 which I think means I found the most efficient possible way to a win in those case.  And sometimes I am not even on the list being 10 back of the leader, which shows how tough it is to get on the list.

I can tell from the other names on the list that people all over the world are playing this game and that  is the quantifiable basis on which I proclaim I am World Class.

And playing solitaire on the iPhone in competition with players all over the world sure beats being angry about the nonsense the GOP spews out to rile up their base and try to take over the Congress in a low turnout election.  I have no control over any turnout other than my own and I live in NY, so even that won't make much difference.  Maybe we should move to Virginia, but RSL wants nothing to do with the place other than visit her sister and bring home garden produce.  Our turnout would matter in Virginia.

Creationism vs Science

Part and Parcel of science denial has been an expansion in non-public schools of teaching creationism  as opposed to evolution.  These creationists shrink the history of the earth to 10,000 years and deny the validity of the science that the earth and the universe are 4.5 bn and 13 bn years old.

I will admit I have no idea where the material in the Big Bang came from.  I have an MBA from the University of Chicago, have always been interested in science, but do not understand physics.  But I do trust that electricity works, that we can shoot a rocket into space and send a satellite where we want to, and numerous other scientific facts seem to pan out in the real world.  So at some point, you say, science tells us the truth and we accept it.

My reason for this blog is that Politico found out that public dollars are being used to pay for kids to attend private schools that teach creationism and claim that the science of evolution is wrong.  If evolution is wrong, don't you think the bible would have mentioned dinosaurs?  or woolly mammoths?  Don't you think Noah would have put them on his ark?  Or that any of the Asian religions would have hinted at their existence in their scriptures?

In fact, the very existence of Asian religions and the carbon dated proof that people migrated around the world before the bible says earth began would seem to put a dagger in the creationists arguments.

The real danger in this promulgation of creationism is that it creates an ignorant population.  It creates a population that is brain washed into the denial of science.  And it creates ignorant voters who elect ignorant Congressmen and Congresswomen.  Just look at Michelle Bachmann for an example of how this disrupts the political process of creating compromise.

I am not saying all Tea Partiers are ignorant, although I am tempted to say that.  And I am not saying that all Fed Bashers are ignorant, although I am tempted to say that (I wonder what they would have been saying if the Fed had not saved their real estate values by lowering interest rates?).

I am simply saying that ignorance is a danger to democracy and the state should not be making it easier to promulgate science denial.  No one offered me a subsidy to send my son to private school.  Private schools should have to meet some basic standards to be eligible to cash in vouchers.

Global Warming: Sell Your Barely Above Sea Level Property

The only question is when, not if, the sea levels will rise and cover land that millions of people live on.

I have never been an optimist that mankind would do whatever might be necessary to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, even though there is no doubt in my mind that human activity produces CO2 and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause warmer temperatures which in turn are reducing the ice pack.

The  reason for my pessimism is that this problem is rooted in 200 years of industrialization and rising living standards.  What created the life style that we in the developed world enjoy is based upon the use of carbon energy.  We cannot have our life style without the use of carbon energy.  And what we have in life style, is what those in the emerging and frontier markets want for their life style. They will continue to increase their use of carbon.  Only after attaining a certain life style will they start to understand the need to reduce their use of carbon.  Witness what is happening in China.

Committed politicians could change this with the use of market forces to generate incentives for non-carbon energy development and use.  Cap & Trade was designed by elements of the Republican Party as a market based alternative to carbon taxes.  But today, Cap & Trade is right there with another GOP idea, ObamaCare, as being toxic to support if you are a Republican.

Today I read a Bloomberg column explaining why this political pressure will never develop in the U.S.A.  Too many Americans, particularly those in the Republican Party, but also some independents and probably even some Democrats, believe that Global Warming is a normal part of the earth's cycle.  Evidence that the pace of change is faster then at any point in history (probably because of human use of carbon energy) is unconvincing to these people because they believe the scientists have an economic incentive to keep saying that carbon use is causing global warming.  The fact that these guys are paid is sufficient to introduce a doubt as to the credibility of what they are saying.  Even tho 98% of scientists in this field agree, these doubters believe the other 2% who somehow are not susceptible to being influenced by those that pay them.

In other words, the same mentality that leads to the belief that the NSA is listening to every phone call we make, that NIMBY'ism does not have an effect on economic growth, also leads to distrust of the government and science.  I don't believe it is possible to convince a closed mind.

So, as my son has stated for at least 5 years, good bye polar bears.  They are a goner.  So are many island nations, low-lying populated lands in numerous countries including Miami Beach and other parts of Florida, a lot of Manhattan and Baltimore, and who knows where else.  I have no idea how fast the waters will rise or how much they will rise.  Perhaps I should buy property in White Plains or Peekskill.  I just don't know how to profit from a relocation of Manhattan's vibrant upper income metropolitan center to another spot.  You would have to tear down almost everything just to rebuild the streets and mass transit to work efficiently.

Link to Bloomberg Article

The Satisfied Unsubsidized: or a Silent Big % of the Population

Please read this article by Andrew Sprung in The Atlantic.

Link to How ObamaCare works for lots of people

Crimea, Putin and China. This is not Democracy at work.

As I wrote earlier, I expected Crimea would play out with national agitation for a referendum, then a vote would take place saying the majority of the people wanted to return to being part of Russia (after all if Khruschev hadn't given it to the Ukraine after having a few too many, it would never have been part of the Ukraine), then there would have been negotiation between Russia and the Ukraine and a deal would have been struck returning Crimea to Russia.

That would have been a normal and proper path.  But Putin is a my way or the highway type of guy and seems to be losing touch with a balanced approach to the world.  I guess power must be going to his head as he seems to be an autocrat seemingly approved by a democratic vote, but where the votes don't seem to be completely free anymore.

I hope my old firm sold everything after I left, because I would not invest in Russia anymore.  Even owning stuff close to the state is no longer assessable risk, but faces political forces that cannot be assessed.  That is too bad.  If Obama wants travel restrictions to hurt, he is going to have to forbid the oligarchs who own stuff in NYC from traveling here.  That would mean the guy who owns the Nets and his daughter who lives in a $20 mm condo in midtown.  Putin has not faced the fury of a 20 something princess daughter who can no longer live in her NYC condo.  Of course, I doubt Putin is very supportive of women's rights and would probably tell the father to get the daughter married and producing young Russians to offset the population decline.

I mean life in Moscow can be pretty good if you have billions, but it isn't NYC and America.

Anyway, you would think U.S. Conservative Hardliners would understand Putin wasn't going to let Crimea go.  It would be the equivalent of the U.S.A. letting Guantanamo Bay go back to Cuba and can you image what John McCain and the neo-cons would have to say about that!

The really interesting conundrum is for China.  They preach no interference in internal affairs of nations and view borders as sacrosanct.  Using a vote as pretense to ratify a land grab is not what they want to see.  After all, few Taiwanese would vote to become part of the PRC again.  And who knows how Tibet or the Uyghurs would vote.  So China should be on the side of putting Putin down, but I doubt that would happen.  Autocrats do not criticize other autocrats.

We may not like the partisanship of American politics right now, but it sure beats the alternative.

Income Inequality Can Only be Solved With Something Like ObamaCare

I see this morning that the Republicans are finally going to start discussing what their replacement for  Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare might look like.  It looks like it will try to deal with everything (including some things that ObamaCare did not fix like Malpractice Awards) while not having an individual or employer mandate nor separating access to health insurance from employment.  They do want to have a high risk pool which would have government assistance, which  should in turn help keep individual policies (for those without access to employer sponsored group insurance) more affordable.  That is what matters to me personally as a full cost payer.

What is interesting about the GOP proposals is that they are so scared of embracing the concept of universal access to health insurance, they cannot begin to derive a real set of policies to deal with income inequality and the decline in social mobility.  One of my papers this morning had a story about Texas where low wage people were not signing up for health insurance because (i) it cost it cost too much relative to their wages (thanks to Texas not expanding Medicaid) and (ii) they go to the hospital when they need to and show how poor they are forcing the hospital to write the service off as an expense.

These low wage people said I need to buy diapers and food for my children.  Conservatives would say, "Well why did you have the children?"  They in turn could say, I was in love with a bum and I don't believe in abortion.  And the pro-life Conservatives would say, "We can't support you with food or health insurance because then you would not have an incentive to work."  And the low wage person would say, "I am working.  I have a GED and I earn minimum wage.  And when I get sick, I don't earn anything."  And the children who are now in diapers will most likely be in a similar place in 18 years.

Without foods, health care and education. it is unlikely the poor will move out of their circumstances and remain poor.

WonkBlog, the Washington Post daily email provided the following data, which my GOP readers should contemplate when pondering policies that would do the country some positive good (as oppose to their current polices of simply saying nyet).

65% of Americans think Income inequality has gotten worse since the country adopted Reaganomics.

45% of America's children live in poverty.

6% was the cumulative growth rate in the median wage between 1979 and 2011.  The 95 percentile saw a 37% cumulative growth rate, while the top 1% grew by 113%. (That is an indictment of something and I am a capitalist.)

4.4% is the probability of a child in the bottom 20% making to the top 20% in Charlotte, NC.  San Jose, CA has the highest probability with 12.9%.  It would be interesting to see where NYC ranks with its support of CUNY, generally supportive safety net and the success of the GOP Mayors in reducing crime.

58% of American Adults support raising the minimum wage.

4,791,000 long term unemployed heading to or already in the ranks of the poor.  These people were productive taxpayers and self supporting economic beings before the Great Recession.  They are not dogs deserving to be put to sleep.

Income inequality is an issue Democrats need to run on and hit hard.  Health Insurance, education and food are critical to escaping being dependent on the government.

Bill Maher Must Not be a Believer

I am not either, but if you want to be, I will not be proselytizing you to see things my way.

However, I think this Bill Maher take on the Noah's Ark movie is hilarious.


Click here and then go down to the video

The Culture of Dependency is Real and Integrated with Income Inequality

I know that sounds obvious but let me explain.  I define the culture of dependency as being anyone who benefits economically from government policy.

So what are the largest forms of supplementing individual's wealth prospects?  I am confident all belong on the list, but after the 1st two I am guessing at their proper placement.

1.  Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
2.  No tax on Employer provided Health Insurance and tax deductibility for the employer
3.  Agricultural subsidies
4.  Medicaid
5.  Food Stamps
6.  Other forms of poverty alleviation.

I don't include Medicare on this list because I think it is still self-funded, but I am not sure.  And I do not include Social Security because we all pay into it for our working lives and it does have a trust fund that still has a positive balance.  I know on a cash flow basis, the money went to the Treasury and was spend by every Congress since WWII ended, but that doesn't mean the beneficiaries should have any benefit cuts beyond what is necessary to keep the system nominally self-sufficient.  Notwithstanding AARP, changing the inflation calculation would be an appropriate way to fixing 30% of the long term social security deficit.

Paul Krugman addressed his view of the real Republican agenda today.  He attributes the GOP motivations to base racism which I dismissed yesterday.  But he also highlights the inconsistencies in GOP policy that drive me nuts.  If the GOP really wanted to fix the budget rationally, you would address the other bigger issues on the list.  You would support tax reform today so there could be a debate on it that voters could render an opinion on in November.  But Boehner buried Camp's proposal.

Link to Krugman

Meanwhile, Krugman does highlight what I attempted to yesterday.  The culture of poverty is both an urban and rural phenomenon and it is pervasively intertwined with Income Inequality.  It is has increased because of globalization and the increased use of technology.  There are no simple solutions, but causing people to starve is neither humane nor productive.  Hungry people don't have the energy to look for work.  And as both the Daily News and the New York Times highlighted in articles today, many of the poor are working at minimum wage jobs.  And they are hard working and care about their families.  That is what the GOP is supposed to be all about, but they do not come up with policies that address their needs while trying to fulfill the larger appropriate goal of balancing the budget.

How Hard it is to get out of poverty

Urban Working Poor Going Hungry

The really galling thing to me is that the supposed financially conservative Republican Party borrowed the funds to fight the War on Terror and still does not want to raise the revenues necessary to pay down that debt.  I don't believe tax rates should be at the proverbial moon rate, but if you cut out some of the subsidies that are going to the broad middle class through interest deductions and employer provided health insurance, you might contribute meaningfully to a balanced budget and repayment of the War on Terror, which we all benefit from.  Yes, housing prices might go down, but there is no free lunch.  Something the Bush II Administration forgot as they believed an economy built on housing and ever increasing amounts of mortgage debt could provide the economic growth to pay for their government.

I know it is time to move beyond the Bush II era and focus on today.  But as long Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers are actively funding the same type of politicians who believe in Trickle Down Economics, in starving the beast by cutting taxes endlessly without any consideration of the necessary spending of the government and a proper humane safety net; I will keep pointing out that government cannot function without revenues and government is a necessary thing for a fair society.

I do not believe that government has an easy solution to the pervasive poverty created by globalization and technology.  But the government can be humane in discussing it and not casting blame on those who make a mistake.  We need some social mobility as a society or hope will die and that would not be good.

There was little economic growth prior to Democracy and the Industrial Revolution because the rich were only interested in preserving their wealth.  Democracy is a necessary support for middle class supported capitalism historically and maybe even today as we see the the growth of oligarch's in the emerging markets.  But the state of the international world cannot be a subject today in this posting.

There is a Culture of Dependency and Income Inequality is a cause

and it can neither be solved by tax cuts alone or GOP policies without modification.

Unfortunately, the rural areas of America have been left behind by globalization, the integration of technology, and the deterioration of education.  This has added to a rural culture of dependency to the traditional urban culture of dependency.  Ironically, the urban dependent tend to vote Democratic while the rural, elderly dependent tend to vote Republican.

What are the vehicles of dependency?  Well, they are anything that avoids allowing a domestic version of the Irish Potato Famine, from which the only humane escape was the open immigration policy of the United States.   Tom Egan tells why Paul Ryan should remember to have compassion

There is nothing wrong with such vehicles if they serve a public purpose.  Not everything the government has ever done has served a public purpose, but the fact that people are not starving and dying in the gutter as they did in Ireland 170 years ago means that public policy is serving a humane function and the debate should be focused on what policy adjustments will make things more balanced or better.

Ironically, GOP opposition to increasing the minimum wage is fighting the one policy adjustment that would serve GOP purposes of reducing dependency on government programs.  If you raise the minimum wage, the working poor should not need or qualify for food stamps, heating subsidies and medicaid.  Anyone who works a 40 hour week should not be dependent on the government for anything, unless their employer does not provide health insurance, then some support is needed there.  Once this element of the culture of dependency is eliminated, the debate can properly focus on what standard of living should be supported by government programs and who should benefit from government subsidy in the process.

I know that current Agricultural Subsidies and numerous tax policies provide government funding for benefits only accrued by people who are very well off.  This is certainly a part of the Culture of Dependency.  After the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, I don't know how anyone on welfare can remain there for an entire life.  So while the GOP runs against this vision of the culture of dependency, I don't know how real it is because frankly I am in the top 5% and I don't hang out with people not in the top 5%.  I know the workers I meet who earn less are serious about their work and earning a living and not looking for the government for anything except affordable access to health insurance.

But the GOP brings Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security into their culture of dependency.  I don't know how a program a worker pays into for 45 years, expecting those savings to take care of them in retirement, creates a culture of dependency.  And what is truly ironic is that, now that the Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare is bringing down the rate of increase in the cost of government provided health insurance, all the GOP can do is run against the exact policies they designed and supported prior to the Democrats passing ObamaCare.

So, while the GOP wants to repeal ObamaCare and wants to talk rationally about not removing tax incentives to work as income rises, ObamaCare, with its gradually reducing support for people's privately purchased and managed health insurance, fits what the GOP want in concept.  The GOP frustrates me in so many ways because they campaign on not fixing entitlements, while they promote policies that will have a clear direct impact on people receiving entitlements.  I don't want social security privatized.  You can means test the cost of Medicare, but you cannot eliminate Medicare.  You cannot have people starving and dying in the gutters (Tom Egan says Paul Ryan is not advocating that but I am not so sure), but you must motivate poor uneducated people to participate in economic activity and that is where our current culture of dependency is failing.  Less educated and/or lower quality gene pools, just don't have what it takes to participate in the global economy or higher compensated domestic economy.  That is where the culture of dependency needs redesign, but it also needs economic activity.  The states must participate.  What works in the Northeast may not work in south Texas.  Government policy cannot solve that through direct action (sorry Democrats), it can only generate a stable economy with guidelines for how society should operate, while providing a safety net that meets the modern guidelines for humane behavior.

Ultimately, we need a rational allocation of government resources to support a minimum standard of living while people are of a working age, we need incentives to save for retirement, and we need a market based economy that is going to be an efficient engine of growth.  The NY Times today had a fascinating story on how private funding for scientific research is growing.  Traditional government support for basic scientific research has dropped in the recession and sequestration battles, but the private sector has stepped in with a focus on specific personal goals.  I could not help but conclude that this is what is supposed to happen in a market economy.  I could not help but conclude that concern about a lack of central direction is overwhelmed by the fact that centralized direction might miss something.  I wish the government could afford more, but until we have repaid the funding for the borrowed War on Terror, and the Baby Boomers pass through the Entitlement Dependency phase of their life, it is good that science continues to be supported.  I hope the government still funds some stuff just in case the private sector losses interest.

Privatization of Scientific Research

CFC's are back! Will Science Deniers Win This One?

Before there was global warming and conservatives started to deny the validity of science, a global consensus developed in 1987 that continuing the production of CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) gases, which destroy the ozone layer, which is turn protects living things on earth from bad emissions from the sun, was undesirable.  So, CFC production was rapidly downsized and all production ended globally in 2010.

Now scientists are finding that there are 4 variations of CFC now appearing in the atmosphere and they are not sure about the sources.  But they are suspicious of certain insecticides and a few other things where manipulation of molecules by the chemical industry might as a sight effect create CFC emissions.

Scientists are working as fast as possible to see if they can determine where these new CFC's are coming from as CFC's take a long time to degrade and recreating ozone takes a long time and no one knows how life on earth would cope with no ozone.  It might be too dangerous to be outside doing any of the fun things we all like to do.

So one would think there would be consensus that this is a worthwhile thing for the EPA to working on.  However, I have little doubt that the Koch Brothers will fight this tooth and nail like they do all other EPA activities.  Koch Industries produces agricultural chemicals.  And if a Republican is the next President, they are likely to follow the Bush II attitude of the EPA serves no necessary purpose.  

Woe to the rest of us if that should happen and we lose the consensus that CFC's are bad.  I enjoy my outdoor activities and I want future generations to be able to enjoy being outdoors as well.  After all, all of human kind has lived outdoors forever and our animals and plants need a healthy environment to thrive and support our nutrition.  That would be Motherhood and Apple Pie if the GOP didn't have so many sciences deniers in their ranks.

# Quotes Show GOP more interested in bashing Obama than

contributing to meaningful foreign policy debate.


All these quotes are copied from the Washington Post Wonk Blog.  Not sure if the copied links will take you there.

KISSINGER: How the Ukraine crisis ends. "Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side's outpost against the other -- it should function as a bridge between them." Henry Kissinger in The Washington Post.



KRAUTHAMMER: Obama, Russia and the wages of weakness. Vladimir Putin is a lucky man. And he's got three more years of luck to come. He takes Crimea, and President Obama says it's not in Russia's interest, not even strategically clever. Indeed, it's a sign of weakness. Really? Crimea belonged to Moscow for 200 years. Russia conquered it 20 years before the U.S. acquired Louisiana. Lost it in the humiliation of the 1990s. Putin got it back in about three days without firing a shot."Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post.

VINIK: Republicans are playing politics while Ukraine faces default. "Republicans are tripping over themselves to propose ideas to hit Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But at the same time, they are limiting Ukraine's ability to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund. That makes it more likely Ukraine will default on its debt, which could destabilize the country and invite exactly what the Republicans want to prevent: further Russian aggression." Danny Vinik in The New Republic.

Raise the Minimum Wage

I may have already written on this, but just in case, I want to be perfectly clear about the basis of my belief.

I am sitting here this a.m. finishing my tea, having read my newspapers, and finally waking up my brain playing number teasers on-line, when a train goes by.  I live 3 blocks from the train station and love it because it takes me back to the small town I grew up in where I listened to the trains passing through town at night and dreamed of going wherever that engineer was going.

So this morning's train made me think of that engineer.  And I thought about how a society functions with people doing all kinds of jobs to make that society work.  Each of those people have a need to live by earning a livable wage.  And I thought how each of us has an obligation to society to pay enough for whatever we buy so that each person in that supply chain earns a livable wage.

No one should have to work 80 hours a week and have a barely livable income.  And if we can't pay a teenager $10.00 an hour to staff a pizza joint or man a checkout counter in a bodega or country market, then raise the prices by a penny or two or even 10 cents, and pay them $3.00 more an hour.

Some cynics might say all that would be doing is putting more drug money in their pockets, but maybe a little more income for honest work might keep urban teenagers out of gangs and reduce the student loans that college students have to take out.

My work in college paid my rent, utilities, and food with 25 hours a week.  $25*$7*4= $700 a month before taxes.  I don't think that would pay rent, utilities, and food anymore.   Inflation hurts low income people much more then it hurts higher income people.

Raise the minimum wage.

Rob Astorino

The GOP Westchester County Executive wants to run for Governor of NY State.  It will be interesting to see how his strategy of getting lots of votes upstate works.  He is pro-fracking.  I happen to be also, but will not vote for him because I cannot vote for any Republican until they become more balanced in their approach to just about everything.

The problem with his strategy is many of the rural Republican voters are NIMBY's.  They don't want a gas pipeline built along Interstate 88 and they don't want fracking.  You can frack all you want, but you need a pipeline to take the gas away to the market where it will be used.

So Mr. Astorino will have to be both pro-Constellation pipeline and pro-fracking.  Again, I support both of these activities, but I don't believe the upstate NIMBY voters will.  So I think Mr. Astorino is doomed to remain Westchester County Executive.

This is the Result of 24 Hour News/Talk Media

Face it, I am a normal person, very attuned to the issues of the world, and I can only find stuff to write/talk about for 30 minutes a few days a month.  What in the world can you do to fill up 24 hours day after day?

It appears that I missed the sensitivity of Russia to Nato's expansion east.  Of course, I knew that they were unhappy whenever this started 8 or 10 or ? years ago.  But I didn't know that this was a reason for the quick war in Georgia (the country not the state) in 2008.  So you would have thought the EU would have shown a little bit of sensitivty when trying to rescue the Ukraine financially.  Of course, the reason I didn't short the Ukraine was the fact that I thought they would agree to an IMF program and conduct sensible economic policies that would have stabilized the economy.  Instead, Yanakovich  (sp?) was so corrupt and crooked that he turned that down in favor of a Russia financial rescue that allowed the unstable policy mix to continue.  And we see where that got him?  A dacha near Moscow supported with money in Cyprus no doubt.  And it got the Ukraine and the world in the current situation.

But I really wanted to reference Thomas Friedman's column this morning.  He deserves the big bucks for being able to write coherent insightful columns like this on a regular basis.

Link to Friedman's column


And I love his 1st paragraph because it inspired by title and introductory paragraph so I copy it below.

"Just as we’ve turned the coverage of politics into sports, we’re doing the same with geopolitics. There is much nonsense being written about how Vladimir Putin showed how he is “tougher” than Barack Obama and how Obama now needs to demonstrate his manhood. This is how great powers get drawn into the politics of small tribes and end up in great wars that end badly for everyone. We vastly exaggerate Putin’s strength — so does he — and we vastly underestimate our own strength, and ability to weaken him through nonmilitary means."

Republican Criticism of President Obama Has No Consistency

in its substantive basis.  They just simply hate him for reasons they cannot articulate.  I think it is desperation at the potential for him to nominate a majority liberal leaning number to the Supreme Court, but that is certainly nothing the President controls and will be what will be.

Dana Milbank nails a discussion of whether President Obama is a tyrant or without any power as the Republicans describe him.  Basically, he shows all the GOP comments are just simply hot air venting.  We have about as much possibility of controlling events in Crimea as the Russians do of controlling events in Guantanamo Bay.

Link to Dana Milbank Column

Wow, I had no idea that the GOP was trying to change the Constitution!

Like many, I was somewhat relieved that Arizona government decided to let some things just be between individuals and not necessarily be hard coded into legislation.  If someone didn't want to take my wedding pictures, I would just hire someone else.  I must admit I was married at the Chicago City Hall by a judge who believed in ghosts, but that is whole other story.

Tom Egan this morning lays out the basic tenant of the constitution that the Republican party is working to overturn.  Never in the history of this country has religion been allowed to dictate government law.  The constitution protects freedom of religion as defined by freedom of worship limited by adherence to law.

So Mormon's cannot have 10 wives, legally.  Religion cannot sanction keeping women or men prisoners who want to leave the sect.  That is kidnapping.

But that is what is happening in this never ending war on ObamaCare.  Government passed a law saying insurance had to provided certain things.  Now, elements of the GOP are saying this violates Freedom of Religion.  In essence, Religion will trump government legislation.  This has never been what the Constitution meant by Freedom of Religion.  Worship was constrained to houses of worship and private homes; not including places of work.

Link to Tom Egan article that opened my eyes to this

If the Supreme Court upholds this, it will be opening up a can of worms similar to what "Stand Your Ground" has done.  All you have to do is believe something and you can violate a law.  I shudder at what "Stand Your Ground" has done.  It means any gang banger can shoot another gang banger because he fears for his life.  The only way to convict him is to hope he shoots an innocent victim.

I will not travel to Florida or any other state with a "Stand Your Ground" law.  Innocent people are too at risk of being shot by an individual who is naturally fearful, which is every human being in existence.

Let's Change the Focus of Debate

Since 2001, the partisan debate has been all about the propriety of neo-con desires to wage war to protect U.S. interests, tax cutter's desire to starve the government of funding (although why did Bush II push through Medicare Pharmacy benefits if that is what he really wanted?), and a general quiet push back on providing services to the poor.

It is the last point that I believe is all tied up in the absolute high level of hatred toward President Obama by the Republicans.  I don't think the Democrats hated George Bush II with the same level of veracity.  And it can't really be Obamacare because it's construct is what the Republicans want to use to fix Medicare.  So what is going on in the Tea Party and the anti-tax bastion's of GOP supporting 1%'s?

The one fundamental idea that RedStateVT and I agree 100% on is the responsibility of any individual to live their life in a traditionally responsible manner.  But there is also a tradition in this country of using the power of large numbers to create a safety net for the benefit of all within a capitalist construction.  Most other high income countries use a socialist construct for the safety net.  And it is very clear that even within the GOP today, there is support for the safety net.  No Tea Partier supports ending the Medicare that pays for their relatives diabetes treatments.

But when Mayor Bloomberg had the policy of limiting the size of sugary drinks that are available in one order (you could still have 2 order's if you really wanted that much), he was completely ridiculed by many on the hard right for nanny state leanings.

So, what we have in this country is the following:  the hard right hates the liberals for wanting a nanny state and not promoting individual responsibility in all things economic; while the hard left hates the conservatives for not recognizing that the affects of income inequality are too real while they continue to advocate starving the beast now that the $1.0 trillion plus bill for the borrowed War on Terror is effecting other government services.

Being able to be personally responsible is facilitated by the social safety net.  But as we have seen in the not too distant past, if the social safety net does not require people to take on personal responsibility as time passes, then they become wards of the state.   Policies must discourage becoming a ward of the state.

It really is a shame that we are not having serious debate over where and how we should draw the line on personal responsibility.  That used to be the partisan debate.  Universal health insurance would be cheaper, but there is a potentially unmanageable economic issue with all the people who work at private health insurance companies and these private insurance companies are managing about 10% of medicare recipients insurance.  Also, Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare was designed to keep the private insurance system viable and keeping the HeathCare system in the private market while trying to control costs.  Critical to keeping the cost of health insurance affordable for all is the personal responsibility for everyone to buy health insurance because everyone needs health care with unpredictable timing.  That is what insurance is all about.

The law of large numbers is what all entitlements are all about.  And entitlements need constant monitoring to make sure there is a balance between benefits and funding.  Right now there is not, but hatred of President Obama prevents a Grand Bargain from occurring.

So I think the President should change the focus of the debate from where it has been to a discussion of where lines of personal responsibility should be placed.  Then maybe we can move things forward with the majority of voters behind the politicians of both parties who decided to lead on this critical issue.

I thank Nicholas Kristof for my inspiration this morning.  Here is his column:

Link Kristoff column on Personal Responsibility

And here is an editorial on how politicians of both parties refuse to lead us in a productive manner.

Fear Mongering on Medicare


Lastly, the Ukraine.  I actually thought there would be a vote and Crimea would vote to rejoin Russia.  I think the Ukrainian government would have accepted that easily.  However, Putin couldn't wait.  I think Putin may be loosing his marbles and at the very least, he certainly has an insatiable appetite for power.  And there is nothing the U.S. can really do except work with the EU to boot Russia out of the G8.

Very Funny Stupid Human Trick

It will take some patience, but I laughed loudly both the 1st time Thursday night and today re-watching it.  Juggling and eating a hot dog, the bun, and mustard.


Go Forward to Minute 20 and wait for the Ad's to pass

The Health Care Debate in the U.S.A.

I notice that I have many readers outside the U.S.  I imagine it is very difficult to understand our health care debate, which is never ending, despite ObamaCare being developed by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think tank and the GOP plan to use the exact same model to reform Medicare.  You would think the Republicans would be happy to have a private sector solution to an area that is sinking both government finances and the personal finances of many individual families.  All the while we have many uninsured people going untreated until they show up in the emergency room and get service for free.  Healthcare expense equals 20% of U.S. GDP.  Something had to be done and Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare is what we got.  It is not perfect, but when you are reforming 20% of GDP there are bound to be problems that need to be fixed.  But returning to the prior status quo is totally irresponsible if you are a fiscally conservative.

So, if you are wondering what the GOP thinks, I post the following column written by a Cynthia Tucker on Yahoo News.

During a Republican primary debate in the last presidential election cycle, there was a dispiriting moment in which tea party audience members cheered at the idea that a comatose uninsured American -- unable to afford health insurance -- would be left to die. That infamous outburst, among others, has prompted GOP bigwigs to try to cut back on primary season debates, hoping to limit appearances that might expose the party's baser impulses.

But that mean-spirited and contemptuous attitude toward the sick is alive and well in the Grand Old Party, as its maniacal (and futile) resistance to Obamacare has made clear. Now, one Republican politician is pushing that callousness to new lows: He wants to bar the uninsured from hospital emergency rooms.

Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal criticized a decades-old federal law that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds and have emergency facilities -- and that's most -- to treat any patient who walks in needing care, regardless of his ability to pay. "It came as a result of bad facts," Deal said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And we have a saying that bad facts make bad law."

Deal says that many people use emergency rooms unnecessarily, and those patients inflate health care costs. He is factually correct. But there are other facts that undercut his arguments and reveal his hypocrisy.

First off, Deal is among those red-state Republicans who have vociferously opposed the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance available to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If more people had health insurance policies that paid for doctors' visits, fewer would use emergency rooms for routine complaints.

Second, Deal, like many Republican governors, has refused the Medicaid expansion made possible by Obamacare, even though the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and 90 percent until the year 2022. That expansion is the best chance many Georgians without means have for getting health insurance.

So, to sum up, Deal hates Obamacare and refuses its Medicaid expansion, which would keep the working poor out of emergency rooms. In addition, he wants to deny them access to emergency rooms unless they can pay. Really, governor? Don't you insist that your values are "pro-life"?

It's no wonder that GOP strategists shuddered when audience members responded so cruelly during the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in September 2011. It portrays the party as pitiless -- a reputation unlikely to attract a majority of voters.

Quiet as it's kept, most Americans support keeping Obamacare, despite the relentless pounding it has taken from Republicans. (And despite a website rollout that was infuriatingly incompetent.) A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of Americans favor keeping it in place, while just 31 percent want to repeal it. (Twelve percent want to replace it with a GOP plan.)

That's likely because most voters, no matter their reservations about Obamacare, know that the Republican Party has no good solution for the millions of Americans who work every day but still don't earn enough money to buy a health care plan. Americans have struggled with the nation's dysfunctional health care "system," and they know it's overdue for an overhaul.

Meanwhile, as the mid-term elections draw closer, the GOP struggles to come up with a plan that pretends to overhaul the health care system. Looking to avoid being painted as mere obstructions, House Republican honchos are working to draw their caucus together behind a bill that would replace Obamacare with a workable alternative.

But the most sincere plan so far -- one offered by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- would probably offer policies too skimpy to do any good once a policy-holder gets sick.

Besides, even that replacement idea seems unlikely to draw broad support among the far-right tea partiers, who believe that allowing the uninsured poor to die is the appropriate government response to the health care crisis.

That's a hulking bit of hypocrisy for a party that advertises itself as "pro-life." Deal's latest proposal is one more reminder of how little that label means.