Will the Middle East Politics Continue in Washington?

I suspect so which is why I may have to end this blog.  What is the point of writing about sensible policies that take place in the middle of the political spectrum and draw upon the need for government to help people while remaining true to the sensibilities of market signals; which means good ideas come from both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Anyway I am not at that point yet.

Thomas Friedman is also not optimistic, and is pinning his hopes on Hillary stuffing the Bernista's, while acknowledging the worthiness of their goals, and working with centrist Republicans to solve some pressing issues like corporate tax reform, improving the ACA, and improving our infrastructure.  I would also add to that some realistic discussion on how to pay for the baby boom elderly entitlements while leaving a system that is viable for subsequent generations.

Link to Friedman column

Lawyer's Need To Support the End of Anonymous Ownership & End RoboCalls from the

60 Minutes reran a piece on how U.S. Lawyers facilitate money laundering and how their lobbying has until now convinced Congress that they should not pass a law requiring every company to identify the beneficiary of its ownership.

If every company was required to disclose the beneficiary of its ownership the Helfinstine swine that own the call center system behind "Lower your interest rates" would be disclosed.

But beyond that what we would find out it who owns all these expensive condominiums that are sold to shell LLC's behind which is some anonymous owner.  I am sure a number of these people own Trump properties through shell companies and Trump is potentially complicit in money laundering selling properties to people who use such a technique.  No doubt Donald Trump would not be behind such a law.

On the other hand, I know my friend RedStateVT hates lawyers who make money off questionable behavior and use it to lobby Congress.  So I am quite sure we would agree on this.

I Get It Now, Medicare for All is the only solution for viable Health Insurance System

My Dr friend that I have previously cited had the idea that the transition for the employees and companies that are in the private insurance space could be managed by simply lowering the age people could sign up for Medicare by one year for 47 years until it was 18.  And he would leave the employee insurance plans in place.

But that didn't convince me that the transition issues were insurmountable.

But then I read the following letter to the editor this morning.

"How many times must it be demonstrated that health care cannot be treated like any other market commodity before our legislators get the point? This article once again confirms that affordable health care can’t be delivered using a private, for-profit system."

"One cannot make a profit insuring sick people. Therefore, health insurance companies are most profitable when they avoid sick people while continuing to collect premiums from healthy customers. When this does not work, raising prices is necessary to keep profits up."

"But health insurance premiums are already unaffordable for most of us. That is why the young and healthy are not buying. The only way to make health care affordable is to have everyone paying into the pot in proportion to their income while eliminating the unnecessary expensive middleman: health insurance companies."

"Must we wait until only the billionaires will be able to afford health care before we join all the other industrialized countries and switch to such a government-funded single-payer system (Medicare for All)?"

ELIZABETH R. ROSENTHAL

Larchmont, N.Y.

The writer is a dermatologist.

Remember that Medicare Part D is the private insurance space within Medicare.  It is also for healthy people the most affordable component of Medicare.  So it is likely that younger people would migrate to this part of Medicare keeping people who work in the private insurance space employed.

Meanwhile, the entire health care system is moving to networks and other things to try and control costs.  Only by having Medicare negotiate with Drug companies are we going to stop price gouging like the epi-pen debacle.  And where is the FDA in approving generics on this product?

But the real problem is new techniques that require a lot of RnD keep being found for people to survive things they wouldn't have survived previously and they want to survive and they want those treatments.  And the capital that funds that RnD needs a return.  I don't have a solution for that unless you simply use costs as a rationing tool and only the more well off will get certain treatments.  This is already the case within Medicare.

But that is a separate issue from how do you make basic health insurance affordable for everyone (or as affordable as it can be).

I now support Medicare for all.  I have no idea how you get that through Congress.

Dear People Who Want to Ignore Climate Change

I was having a discussion yesterday with some friends, one of whom is a Dr and one of whom is a lawyer.  The Dr. asked the lawyer about how the limitations of human eyesight mean that no one can read 100% of complex X-rays/MRI's/CatScans correctly 100% of the time.  The result is malpractice lawsuits for negligence with payments made by the insurance industry.  After some go around between the lawyer and the Dr about defining the situation, I chimed in with a comment that that is the business of law and insurance, which the lawyer defined as being too cynical on my part as it ignored the role of insurance in society as a means of compensating people who have been wronged and providing them with the wherewith all to be self supporting and not a burden on society.

Now I know many Republicans feel that tort law is out of control in this country and I generally agree with that.  But on the other hand, I do believe in the concept of insurance spreading the cost of loss over a large number of people or over all of society.   And I think most Republicans agree that Insurance is a good thing for individuals to have.  So they agree with the concept of the individual protecting oneself from a sudden unexpected unaffordable losses with insurance.

Now the question that has occurred to me as we see 500 year floods and wild fires occurring all over the place year after year after year is the following:  If insurance is a means of society incentivizing people to have proper behavior to avoid losses that they cannot afford and spreading the cost of such losses which occur even when people have proper behavior (remember insurance is a good concept), then why don't Republicans want to provide a market signal so that people will contribute to a reduction in green house gases that science proved warm the atmosphere in the 1850's.  If the cost is provided in market signals then people will do what they to avoid the price of polluting.  Right now, everyone can pollute with zero cost and the people who are paying are paying through floods and fires and the higher cost of insurance for that.

While the horse may be out of the barn and the barn door closed in regards to global warming, it seems to me that the costs of rising sea levels and rising humidity levels and rising temperatures will only continue to rise and society has an interest in doing what it can afford to to combat that.  We don't know what the future will bring, but wouldn't it be prudent to have some insurance that tries to moves us in a better direction?

Meanwhile, it seems that Donald Trump has used $43 mm of the $80 mm raised for his campaign to pay his shell companies for services and consultants who do who knows what since Donald Trump says he runs his own campaign.  It does appear that Trump is simply using the campaign to enrich his wealth and support his life style.  God forbid he should win and get control of the Federal Budget and get to order the IRS to layoff audits of his taxes.

Some Good News, the U.S. is a Strong World Player and Yes we ARE GREAT!!!

Where it Tony the Tiger when you need him?

It gets lost in the anger of Donald Trump stating that America is not Great anymore, but he will return us to that status. It gets lost in the anger of angry left that wants some vague socialist path to an undefined righteous society.  It gets lost in the frustration of center right voters who want a return to a more self-contained respectful of they views society and it gets lost in the frustration of the center left who just want a country that addresses it's problems and becomes a better country.

But the U.S. has many institutions and processes in place that make us globally competitive in the Olympic Games, education, technology, entertainment, farming, energy production, finance, medicine, insurance, transportation, construction and manufacturing.  I am sure I left some out.

We are not a failure as a country despite the effects of the Great Recession.  Global Trade Deals have resulted in a manufacturing trade surplus for the United States with those countries with whom we have a trade deal.  We are net winners from Global Trade although there are individuals and industries that are losers too.  I am not sure how we fix the economic environment for those losers  because the system our founders put in place required mobility to seek out better opportunities.  But somewhere along the line this was forgotten and the gold standard for the economy in the minds of Trump supporters became economic opportunity where I live. It is state governments that control those local environments and the competitive market economy has many myriad influences on the exact location of employment opportunities that states must respond too.

Vermont for example attracts entrepreneurs and workers who appreciate the mountain environment.  You can't screw that up without upsetting the voters.  But the state also has to encourage companies to remain and relocate there to provide opportunity for those people who do not want to move.  That is not the responsibility of the Federal Government which must manage the economy for the benefit of everyone in every state.

I thank David Brooks for the inspiration and the fact of the U.S. trade surplus with our treaty parties.  Link Below.


Link to David Brook's column

Extreme Vetting & Other Tidbits from the Trump Campaign

I have been waiting for Donald Trump to expand upon his extreme vetting concept so I could know how it is different from what the U.S. already does.  I don't know the exact process but I do know it takes upwards of two years, multiple applications and interviews by different people. all looking to trip people up and disqualify them.  Meanwhile, people who were at the side of military working as translators and proving their loyalty to the U.S. at least in spirit are denied access by this same process, so I am not sure how anyone gets through it, but a few, mostly families with a father and a mother and kids somehow make it here.

So I suspect Donald Trump does not have much that he will really change except to shut down the process completely, which is what he wants to do on everything that has to do with international affairs.  End trade agreements, tear up security agreements and go after our friends to pay more while making niceties with Russia.  He would a chaotic to say the least, so I am now quoting Jeb Bush and agreeing with him.

Trump could do far less damage on the domestic side of the economy (international would be bad enough) because he would need Congress to pass laws which would not happen unless the GOP controlled the Senate and that is not likely.  And if they did, we would return to the health insurance system of 5 years ago which required one to have employment to have an affordable health insurance plan and heaven forbid you had a pre-exisitng condition so a GOP Senate combined with a Trump Presidency would lead to chaos on the domestic side.  But Trump would nominate more crazy Justices like Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court so we could not look for any solace on that front.

The degree to which Trump is unqualified to be President is almost beyond words although I have tried with these writing to highlight a few:  corrupt businessperson, conspiracy believer, rude, ignorant in so many ways it almost defies description, and greedy.  I am convinced he ran for President so he could cut his estate taxes, assuming his tax returns verify that he is rich, but I am quite sure he has more than $10.4 mm which is when the estate tax kicks in for a married couple.  Meanwhile, I am convinced he won't release his tax returns because they would show what he is hiding from the public view and I bet whatever it is would be stunning to many.

The only thing that was a positive in the news recently was the shakeup of the Trump campaign has put two people in charge who agree with Trump's most outlandish tendencies.  So we can expect Trump to do things that will repel what I hope is a sufficiently number of middle of the road types to vote for Democrats in key swing states.  Because a Democratic victory is the only hope for progress on fixing health insurance, doing something about global warming, and in general preserving economic stability.  Not to mention over the longer term perhaps getting some sensible gun control.

Which is why Trump's focus on Law & Order is pure politics and nothing more.  There can be no reduction in the threats to police and improving law& order in Chicago or any other inner city without sensible gun control.  And Trump/NRA are not going there.  That is why the NRA supports Trump flat out.

I was with some friends yesterday who are in touch with one very conservative old friend.  I asked what DM was up to with his writing.  I was told he says nothing about Trump and just goes on and on  about how awful Hillary is.  But that begs the question, if you don't want Hillary and you will vote for Trump, how can you ignore what a danger he is to economic stability, not to mention international security?  Since we don't have a parliamentary system, we need balanced leaders who know how to compromise.  That is certainly not Trump, but it is Hillary.  It might be the libertarian guy but he will not get my support.

Be Careful What You Wish For or Sunday Discoveries About the Election

Boy, Henrik Stenson sure can putt well.  The most 50'ers in a four day period ever I believe.  Also, there sure are a lot of alligators or crocodiles at the Olympic golf venue.  New definition of water hazard.

Pundits are coming up with new ways to analyze this election.  Some strike me more as more real than others.  Ross Douthat analyzed it as a conflict between sexual revolutions with Hugh Hefner admirers supporting Donald Trump (and watching porn on their computers perhaps) while women's liberation types support Hillary.  Someone else, pointed out that white working class men used to vote the way their union told them to and now with unions waning power they are free agents to vote their personal beliefs which can well reflect ignorance and hate.  Both writers used the words, be careful what you wish for since in their view it is responsible for Trump being the candidate (The GOP for wanting to end the power of unions and women for wanting sexual freedom).  Nicholas Kristoff pointed out that people who need to be feel superior to someone support Trump and his lack of political correctness allows them to voice their ugly ignorant racist thoughts at whomever they want to target.

Meanwhile, we had dinner with friends last night and a new (to our little group) couple of people told anecdotes about experience doing work for Donald Trump in the 1980's or 1990's.  In each case, the people found their original pricing for service subject to Trump personally objecting to the price even though his people had contracted for it.  He basically tore up the contract, said sue me and then offered to pay a price that would be a little more than Original Price less lawyers fees.  He is a dishonest person who is only out to enrich himself.  He is more Kardashian than the Kardashian's.

Meanwhile, my distrust of polling remains high and while I hope Hillary wins every state, I have no idea how pollsters can get an honest assessment of an election when many people refuse to answer phone calls when they don't recognize the phone number.

American Politics is Insane (and not likely to improve after November)

Link to How American Politics Went Insane



I printed this 30 page piece and have yet to read it, but I posted it because I want my loyal readers to see ASAP.  I know from the WAPO column that linked it for me that the premise is the last 6 years of gridlock in Washington is going to continue for another 4 years no matter who wins the election, but specifically if Hillary Clinton is President.  The GOP nut cases who constitute the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus will be even more powerful as it is middle of the road Republicans who will lose their 2016 elections.  Ted Cruz and his like minded types will be in no mood for compromise leading to frustration on the part of everybody.

The only saving grace if you are a Democrat is at least Hillary will be appointing Supreme Court Justices and longer term that may have a benefit by getting Citizens United overturned.  Corporations cannot vote and they should not be able to influence elections with undisclosed and unlimited money.

How Conspiracy Belief Became the Core of the GOP & Where will it take them?

Link to Salon Column on Prevalence Within GOP of Conspiracy Theories




I cannot say it better so just click on the link.

What I Learned on Vacation

1st and foremost, I was reminded how nice people in this country are to strangers.  Even in tourist towns, people respond to curiosity and share their lives, while trying to be helpful to those in need of information.

The 2nd thing I learned is how when it comes to politics we are on multiple different planets.  There are four planets in the U.S. political universe at present.  2 on the left: (i) Traditional centrist Democrats who range from conservative to liberal and (ii) ultra-liberal who want their way now and are not necessarily acknowledging of practical realities.  The first support Clinton and the second support the Green Party, which is what the Ralph Nadar movement has become.  There are also 2 on the right.  Practical Republicans, who somewhere in their brain understand that compromise is a necessary part of politics, and are really really scared of Donald Trump getting his brain in control of the nuclear codes.  Meanwhile, they abhor Hillary Clinton but they are between a rock and a hard place and may support the Libertarian Johnson and Weld team if they ever get what they stand for out there.  And then there are the Angry Republicans, who support Trump.

Their anger has many sources, some of which may be the responsibility of the Democratic Party, some of which is the responsibility of the GOP establishment.  That shared responsibility of both parties is the failure of the economy to work for all.  More on this in the next paragraph.  Some of it is the direction society has gone in on any number of issues regarding personal behaviors.  Some of it is access to abortion and I do believe, no matter how much I disagree with their conclusion that women should not control their decision to be mothers, that people who support the rights of the unborn over the rights of the living are heartfelt in that belief and they cannot vote for a Democrat if they make that their number one political issue.  Obviously, for some wackos, the NRA is the only issue that matters.  The problem for me is this last wing is the source of domestic terrorism.  There are probably more single issue sources of anger, but I cannot list everyone.

As for economic anger, as I have written before, there are no easy solutions for the economic angst that technology and globalization cause.  I just know that tax cuts for the rich and not doing anything is not the answer.  But I also know that helping people develop and maintain a sense of personal responsibility is the key.  But for that they need guidance within their family and the members of the family need hope.

We will see which planet has the most voters across the most states in 12 weeks or so. I am pretty sure the winner will not get 50% of the vote, and where policy goes will depend upon the Congressional elections.

The following opinion column in the Washington Post helped bring my vacation thoughts together.

Link to a Hillbillies view on America