What If It Was The Other Way Around?

I scratch my head trying to figure out how elected government officials including Governors, Senators, and Representatives can speak authoritatively about what the public should do, get vaccinated, don’t get vaccinated, and worst of all, what rights does a person have, and that rejecting vaccinations falls within ones rights.  Hmmm.

I would like to think that the quality of our elected officials simply aren’t what they used to be.  But that may not be true.  (Pretty scary to accept that thought.)  Self interest and personal greed are traditional allies of the elected.

Regardless, one must consider that our current crop of politicians are excelling at mirroring their constituencies.  In other words Governor Abbot of Texas and Governor DeSantis of Florida are simply saying what they feel their supporters want to hear.  Hmmm.

Do you think these Governors are taking a big chance?  What if there are large outbreaks of infections?  OMG, yes there are large outbreaks in their States and these Governors are not changing their tune.  Hmmm.

I suspect both Governors are good poker players too.  They have figured that their voters are reasonably young, at least not nursing home voters,  And, in broad, general terms, Covid-19 does not decimate younger people.  But if you are 50 or older, things might be different.  So for that subset of voters, how about a law and order speech?  

If you remember back to mid 2020 and talk of developing a vaccine.  The prevailing view was that vaccines take years, maybe 5-8 for scientist to understand side effects and the ins and outs inherent in mutations to the original virus.  How did Phizer and Moderna suddenly get so smart?

And, how many Americans have experienced a pandemic before?  The plague, yellow fever, small pox, or ebola?  Newspaper and television reports cited the lethality. If you got one of these viruses, you were in for a serious illness if not death.  In World War I, soldiers were struck down by the “Spanish Flu” largely because they and health officials did not know what to do.  But no one said, “don’t give me a vaccine, I got rights”.  

With the coronavirus things are different.  Most younger people who contract Covid-19 are asymptotic and don’t even experience the feelings associated with the annual flu.  Further, most people, including younger ones, are ignorant of viral spread science and do not realize how the coronavirus can be controlled and ultimately eradicated.  Combine these two and one finds the making of the perfect storm.  “I won’t get sick” and “so what if I do”.

Many Americans have been poorly served these past two years.  In addition to rock stupid politicians, many religious leaders have invoked “god” as a natural defense against getting sick.  Vaccines are not needed and may be harmful, some religious leaders preached from their pulpits.  All you can be sure of is that politicians and religious leaders made the calculation that they would be personally better off (more votes, more money in the collection basket) with a line of no action than being coopted by science.

One must wonder what this pandemic might have been like had younger people gotten sick as often and as severely as older and less healthy people?  Virus controlling science may just be too difficult for most people to understand.  Instead, younger people can roll the dice and ignore medical advice and stand a good chance of paying no price for poor judgement.  

2010 All Over Again?

A special House of Representatives’ election in Florida yesterday went the GOP way.  The results raised Democrat fears, that like in 2010, Democrat voters would not turn out.  On top of that, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) as a campaign issue would motivate Republicans to vote in numbers.  Even though one rose does not make a summer, this early loss raises some disappointing possibilities.

It is entirely possible that the best person won in Florida.  What is truly worrisome, however, is the implication the GOP is sending when they raise the Affordable Care Act as a campaign issue.  In fluff filled campaign speeches, the GOP is cleverly conflating debt, deficit, and healthcare cost.  Their message is their candidate, if elected, will work to repeal Obamacare, and all will be better.  Hmmm.

The Congressional Budget Office has already estimated that the Affordable Care Act will actually lower the deficit, not increase it.  Industry reports have also predicted lower increases in insurance premiums (although this claim will require the test of time to confirm).  So what’s the issue?

First, why are not Democrats advertising the many positive aspects of the Affordable Care Act and asking how the GOP would provide?  In 2010, Democrats cowardly tried to hide from this landmark legislation and see how well that tactic work.  In 2014, there is little reason to think acting like a mushroom will work this time.

Entrepreneurs, dependents under 26, and those previously denied insurance coverage can now obtain health care policies.  And most people have still kept their same coverage since most people are covered by their employer.  While some have lost coverage because their employer has opted to cut hours or in some cases, eliminated coverage for all, those impacted have viable options to get coverage through the exchanges.  Under the pre-ACA system, if your employer dropped coverage you were on your own to get coverage if you could qualify.

Second, where is the message about fairness?  Under the pre-ACA system an individual seeking health care insurance was in essence placed in a pool.  The larger the pool, usually the lower the rates.  So, someone with a pre-existing condition who tried to obtain individually insurance coverage was doing so as a pool of one.  The consequences of this type of system is the individual is unlikely to be able to afford coverage if they could in fact find a company willing to insure them.

The message here is those favoring repeal of ACA are in essence saying “we don’t care about those unemployed or those with pre-existing conditions because we already have coverage”.

It is true that some GOP spokesmen say “repeal and replace”, and say they would keep coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Tell me how.  Insuring those with pre-existing conditions will result in higher insurance company spending and those cost must be covered in some manner.  There is no such discussions like that from any GOP Congressional candidate.

The Affordable Care Act stops far short of what I would like for healthcare.  ACA when compared to healthcare in two dozen other modern industrial countries remains far more expensive and likely to be inferior in health outcomes.  Never the less, ACA represents important reforms which should improve care for the average American (the rich will still be able to obtain worldclass care), provides a rationale for controlling to growth in healthcare costs, and provides a partial answer to the question of how the riches country in the world can spend so much on healthcare and have so many without coverage.

Democratic candidates better wake up.  Keeping silent does not ensure victory.  Speaking up in support of ACA, while not guarantying victory, will at least preserve their reputation as a courageous and honest person.

Trayvon Martin Re-Do, Only Different

You remember Trayvon Martin who was shot and killed while returning to his father’s home?  George Zimmerman, who claimed to be on a “community watch” approached Trayvon and when a fight ensued, shot Martin “in self defense”.  Under Florida law, allegedly anyone has the right to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Fast forward to the case of Marissa Alexander.  She fired three warning shots at her estranged husband while fleeing her house.  Arrested and convicted, she received a sentence of three 20 year terms to run concurrently.  No stand your ground here.

Her lawyers appealed successfully the judgement on the grounds of incorrect instructions to the jurors.  Now prosecutors say they will seek conviction but this time demand the three counts be served consecutively.  Hmmm.

In the Zimmerman case, stand your ground was made a joke.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it.  Calls to 911 had already dispatched police and Zimmerman’s confrontation was totally unnecessary.  With Alexander, she was in her home and (according to her testimony) was being threatened by a previously abusive husband.

The message appears to be, if you are threatened, shot to kill.  Otherwise a jury might not believe your story when the other person is questioned.

 

Lonesome George

A six member, all female jury found George Zimmerman innocent of second degree and third degree murder charges yesterday.  For someone who did not follow the trials developments day by day, I was a surprise that “man slaughter” was not an appropriate charge and a guilty verdict for that specification not found.  Hmmm.

The most basic facts were not in dispute.  Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood watch person.  He spotted a stranger in the community and began following.  At some point he called “911”, reported the stranger, and was told to back off and await the police.  Instead, Zimmerman got out of his car and intercepted the victim on foot.  What happens next is somewhat in dispute but Zimmerman did confirm he shot the victim with his personal weapon.  The victim died at the scene.

It seems the case focused on what happened in the confrontation.  Were there grounds for Zimmerman to “fear for his life”?  While that might have been germane to first or second degree murder, it seemed to miss the point for manslaughter.

Had Zimmerman followed police instructions and stayed in his car, the victim would still be alive.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The question of why Sanford prosecutors chose to go for murder 2, and then include manslaughter at the last minute is a mystery.  Maybe they wanted to appear tough or maybe they just mounted an inadequate prosecution.  In the days and weeks ahead, pundits will share their thought.

There will be most likely civil suits against Zimmerman and most probably he will lose them.  This may be enough for the Martin family.

The greatest tragedy that may come out of this is the idea that it is ok to carry a handgun, act irresponsibly, and use it in the manner Zimmerman did.  He may have been losing the fight while on the ground, and he may have truly thought his life was in danger.  Proper behavior well before the fight, however, (and what other gun carriers should learn) does not entitle anyone carrying a gun to take aggressive and provocative actions against others.  That type of behavior should limit ones right to self defense to that used by his/her assailant.

Today George Zimmerman is a free man.  He owes this to a fair and just judicial system and the opinions of 6 peers.

Motive, Means, and Opportunity

The tragic murder investigation playing out in Florida seems to be once again emphasizing the value of due process.  Due process often does not satisfy the public’s emotional thirst but in the end it usually reminds us of the weakness of a rush to judgement.  The case of Trayvon Martin, while not closed, is following this path.

Initially public opinion was incensed with an apparent case of police playing judge and jury.  The alleged suspect was George Zimmerman, a white man, and the victim was Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old black youth.  George was armed, Traymore had a bag of Skittles and a bottle of ice tea.  Zimmerman said he feared for his life and shot Trayvon in self defense.

The public questioned the lack of a thorough police investigation and no arrest as proof that the police were biased.  African American leaders claimed this same situation has been played out too many times before.  Not this time, they said.

With the pressure of public opinion swelling, demanding an arrest, the Sanford, Florida police leaked some information they had collected.  This information revealed a fight where Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman was the recipient of head and nose injuries before the actual shooting.  This could put the incident in a quite different light.

The police inaction does not seem so irresponsible in this light.  The African American community reaction, however, could seem excessive is this were all there was too the story.

At first, attention was focused on the Florida “stand your ground” law and everyone blamed that law.  Next this became a racial hate crime.  But all along the necessary causes has not been discussed.

A crime conviction normally needs evidence that the accused possessed motive, means and opportunity to have committed a crime..

Zimmerman called 911 and reported seeing a suspicious person.  The 911 dispatcher told him police were on the way and to “back off”.  Zimmerman did not.  This episode could have ended with nothing more has he followed instructions.  At the worst, Zimmerman might have gotten a bloody nose had he not also possessed the “means”.

Zimmerman was packing.

It is one thing to be in your own home and an intruder enters with intent to rob or do bodily harm.  Using a weapon might be justified under certain circumstances.  Driving around a sub-division, then following someone on foot even after being told not to, is over the line.  The elements of motive and opportunity seem evident.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun and that provided the means.  He may, in the quietness of his home never thought about shooting someone.  In the heat of the moment, who knows?

Zimmerman could have held deep resentment for blacks, this is not a crime.  Community watches are not crimes either, especially  if Zimmerman had backed off.   No tragedy had to have taken place except if the means were present.

At the root of this tragedy is senseless packing of a weapon.

The Volunteer Fireman’s Syndrome

Over the weekend a story of a Florida tragedy made the news.  Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old youth was shot to death in broad daylight by George Zimmerman, 28.  In and of itself, this is relatively unimportant news even though it is repeated all too often in too many US cities each day.  This story, however, is different because one man was black, the other white, and one man was armed the other was not.

Zimmerman was acting as a volunteer community watch person.  He was driving around a gated community near Titusville, Florida when he saw Martin.  Zimmerman called 911 and reported his observation of someone suspicious.  The 911 operator told him to back off and await police who were in route.

Apparently Zimmerman did not follow the 911 instructions.  The results were a black unarmed youth being shot dead.

Zimmerman has claimed self defense and is still free.  The Black Community is up in arms over what they see as racist injustice.  I wonder whether we are overlooking just as important an issue?

Volunteer fire departments are the backbone of fire protection in much of the Country.  Most volunteer units treat their roles very seriously and seek to be as professional as full time, big city fire departments.  From time to time, however, there is a volunteer who gets a rush out of racing to the station (lights flashing and sirens blasting) and then jumping on the fire truck and racing to the fire.  When this person is denied membership or when there just are not enough fires, this disturbed person helps nature by starting fires himself.

The same (or at least similar) phenomena can be seen in volunteer police units.  Normally there are no problems with these volunteer or auxiliary policemen.  No problems unless they are armed.  Being armed without extensive training is a recipe for tragedy.

The facts of the Trayvon Martin’s death may come out in time.  Justice may ultimately be done.

It is highly unlikely that the real danger presented by carrying concealed weapons as a police auxiliary or as a private citizen will be addressed.

What are the real messages of the 2012 election?

The Florida GOP primary is a hard one to handicap.  Early voting is the reason.  When the mail-in polls opened, Newt Gingrich was in full stride in South Carolina and Mitt Romney appeared asleep on duty.  The question, how many Floridians voted early for Newt?

Since South Carolina, Mitt has bounced back to life in a big way.  His campaign and its “uncoordinated” affiliates have saturated the Florida television airways with all sorts of negative adds and out spent Gingrich about 5 to 1.  From this perspective, Mitt should win handily.

Santorum and Paul are not contenders but will syphon off probably 25% of the vote combined.  That’s 25% Newt could really use.  Too bad for Newt.

But what were the messages voters were reacting too in picking their candidate?  Don’t know.

Even more important, lost in the TV hype is a clues to any underlying difference between all the GOP candidates and President Obama.  For example, what is the proper role of government in today’s economy?

The President continues to follow a Keynesian model where in the absence of strong private demand, the government is the spender of last resort.  The idea is that with spending, businesses will man up to meet the demand.  Lots of people earn money and demand other goods and services, and suddenly the economy is able to operate on its own.

The GOP model is called “trust me”.  In the Republican case, government reduces or eliminates regulations and simultaneously reduce taxes (especially for the job creators).  The GOP proposes that businessmen, now free of cumbersome regulations and more able to invest their profits (rather than paying taxes) will hire people, produce goods and services, and bingo, the economy is jumping again.

Left unanswered in the GOP model is where does a weak economy get the money to buy these newly available goods and services?  Equally unanswered is why should we believe that “unregulated” businesses will take into account the greater good of the community while doing their business this time?  Just “trust me” is their answer.

Actually both of these approaches rely upon “just trust me”.  Both require the government to spend first.  Both approaches predict a recovered economy will generate future tax revenues sufficiently greater than now to pay back the cost of each approach.  So it is sort of a case of who do you believe?

Mitt Romney’s tax return should seal the deal.

Romney’s 14% tax rate should tell any voter all you need to know about what the GOP approach is all about.  Those like Romney win with a good economy and win with a weak economy.  They have no skin in the game.

The 2012 election conversation needs to expand to fully comprehend the US economy.  While I believe Keynes economics is necessary, I also recognize that government spending is far in excess of what Americans are willing to pay.  Health care and defense spending costs are draining the strength of the economy.  (Health care spending is about $3 trillion and defense is almost $1 trillion.)

Medicare is the budget surrogate for health care costs.  We cannot let politicians focus in on Medicare, say they fixed it and then move on.  The problem is the overall health care delivery system is too costly and increasing at a rate greater than the rate of inflation.

Defense spending is also serious.  Defense spending disproportionately aids the top 1% by ensuring that America’s business interests around the world are not impeded.  When we see what current law allows when we review Mitt Romney’s tax return, it should be clear that the wealthy do not want to pay for what they are receiving.

It is time for the debate organizers to ask real questions.  Who cares who is the most or the realest conservative.  What America needs is comprehensive answers to fixing both the government budget and the national economy.

 

So Where Are We?

Florida could as well be located on the North Pole.  I say that in relation to the rhetoric we are hearing from the candidates in Florida versus their words spoken in South Carolina the week before.  The only thing that has remained constant is that all the woes of America are the fault of President Obama.  Liars figure, but figures don’t lie.

Mitt Romney has had a very positive week.  His campaign momentum appears to be on the rise largely on the strength of two good debate performances.  Yet the big question not being addressed is where does Romney stand on tax reform?

Mitt’s tax return speaks volumes about how the system is tilted.  For sure, all Americans are eligible to buy stocks, bonds, or other complex financial instruments.  All Americans also qualify for a low rate on income obtain from these investments.  The facts, however, are that these low rates benefit the rich disproportionately more than the rest of Americans.

This is not a case of “class warfare”.  Rather, it is a case of common sense.  The tax code, we are told, is suppose to be progressive.  Today almost half of those filing returns pay zero.  The rich like Romney pay a tax rate far less that those caught in between.  Tax reform is necessary for fairness but it should be viewed as mandatory for the financial health of the country.

The present tax code is not President Obama’s fault but it sure demands fixing.  Since Romney has a dog in this fight, I wonder why Wolf Blitzer does not press this question and find out how Mitt really feels?

How To Get It Wrong, Big Time

Reports are emerging that a potentially scheduled GOP debate to be held in January in Florida will not take place.  The reasons stated have nothing to do with campaign strategies between the candidates but rather about support for someone not running for President.  Free speech anyone?

The reports say that Marco Rubbio, hispanic Republican Senator from Florida has a beef with one of the potential debate organizers.  Surprisingly, the organizer is the fourth largest television network, Univision.  Oh, and Univision is a spanish language television network.

Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann have already said that in deference to Rubio’s opinion, they would not participate in the debate.  The assumption is this will deny Univision national exposure (to so many non-spanish speaking Americans).

The GOP, of course, is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Here is the real rub.  It would be inconceivable to have a hispanic organizer who did not raise questions that were important to the hispanic community.  The GOP candidates know this and prefer to avoid having to parse their words about their non-immigration policy.

GOP candidates have followed the notion that a sealed boarder is the answer.  And under their watch there will be no one who cuts to the front of the citizenship line.  (Even if there are 11 million of them.)

The GOP party line flies in the face of fact and common sense.  For the most part, Mexicans represent the same core GOP values.  They are hard working, two parent family oriented, and faith holding people.  More to the point, Mexicans are willing to perform jobs most Americans do not want.  In the agricultural sector, guest laborers are essential to harvesting.

Common sense also brings to bear the simple question of how would you expel 11 million, and what would you do with the broken family units that would inevitably occur?

The real position of these GOP candidates lies much closer to “talk tough, look the other way”.  The Univision debate is just a little too close for their comfort.

It remains to be seen whether the rest of America will stand by and allow these candidates to stiff the first Amendment.  As the fourth largest network, Univision certainly has a right to both it news content (Fox does) and its turn to organize a nationally televised debate.

When you get it wrong, and don’t rethink, the path you follow only gets more convoluted.

Foreclosures

The world of economic prognosticators continues to worry about more home mortgage foreclosures. These pros point to the lack of jobs creation and that so many homes are “underwater”. There are now numerous reports of home owners who can afford their payments and who simply walk away from their home or condo because its mortgage value is more than if they sold it outright. Is foreclosure a big problem and how did it come to be?

As with most complicated problems, the first step should be to break the big problem into pieces. When one disaggregates the national foreclosure problem by states, an interesting phenomena emerges. For most of the country there is no exceptional problem.

Saying it another way, the US foreclosure problem consists of (1) a special problem with California (2.1%), Nevada (3.8%), Arizona (2.7%), and Florida (2.8%), and (2) every place else (less than 1% except Michigan and Illinois which are less that 1.4%). The foreclosure rates in these 4 states is 2-3 times that of all other states. There must be a special reason for these states varying so much from the average.

We have heard over and over about sub-prime mortgages and the killing effect that resetting the mortgage interest rate has on the home own. But these are nationwide phenomena. We have heard that the sinking economy has left many people without the means to pay their mortgage.  This too is nationwide.  We have also heard racially based reasons for increased foreclosures.  Alas, this too is nationwide.  Why does not Congress simply look at the real data for these states and share the facts with the public?

Each of the states with high foreclosure rates possess one or more of these characteristics. The are warm and desirable for living, they offer (offered) jobs in the service area to accommodate the State’s growing population, they possessed State Governments friendly to investment and growth in population, and these States were magnets for all sorts of high risk housing sector investment funds.

Until the root causes are established, Government will be wise to halt the bleeding. First, there should be no further unsecured loans (no liars applications and no zero down payments). Second, there should be no changes in interest rates (for say 5 years) unless agreed to by the borrower. If the economy has not recovered in 5 years, we have a much different problem on our hands and we will need a much different solution.