The president now says he'll announce his decision on whether to abandon the international climate control agreement "in the next few days."
Sounds like another attempt to distract attention from other major issues in the news that have been putting his administration in a poor light.
Unfortunately, news media have been falling for this tactic often in the past few months, and broadcast news channels have spent hours every day covering the latest comment from the twitter in chief, sometimes at the expense of reporting developments in the various scandals surrounding the presidency.
More relevant questions immediately become, why not announce your decision now, rather than wait several more days? Why wait? Don't you know enough yet? What else do you need to know? What additional information do you need? Do you disagree with all the other nations that signed the agreement? Why? How will you get the additional information you need? Aren't the issues clear now? If not, why not? Do you deny the reality of climate change, despite all the scientific evidence behind it? Why? Do you feel you are more of an expert on weather and climatology that all the scientists around the world who have been documenting the reasons for a changing climate for decades? Why? What do you know that they don't know? And finally, why won't you share this crucial information if, in fact, you really have it?
Time was, when a politician threatened legal action unless he got his way and a story he deemed negative was withheld, the editor's response was this: Fine. When you file the lawsuit, then we'll run that story, too. Meanwhile, the story you don't like goes to press tonight.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
When Will They Ever Learn?
Threatening reporters does not work, for two major reasons:
One, they answer to their editors, not to politicians. And two, they dutifully record the wording and the context of the threat, and it winds up in print or broadcast, so the general public knows just what the politician said, and what the question or issue was that prompted the attack, either verbal or physical.
This comes to mind after two reports surfaced this week about political types ranting at reporters. In one case, it was a physical attack by a candidate in Montana, and the other was an extreme, expletive-laden verbal abuse by a presidential lawyer against a reporter.
Both incidents were made public and reported by the reporters involved, and soon went viral on the internet, on broadcast news channels and in print.
So the lesson to public officials, candidates, corporate executives and others is this: If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it. And if you don't want your verbal or physical abusive threats and other tactics made public, don't beat up on people, especially reporters.
First off, it's illegal. Second, it's immoral. Finally, it's self-defeating.
The consequences are these: Imprisonment or monetary fine, tarnish to your reputation, and it can lead to an election loss, a job loss, or revenue loss as clients abandon you.
Oh, and there's one other reason even more powerful than the others.
It's stupid.
One, they answer to their editors, not to politicians. And two, they dutifully record the wording and the context of the threat, and it winds up in print or broadcast, so the general public knows just what the politician said, and what the question or issue was that prompted the attack, either verbal or physical.
This comes to mind after two reports surfaced this week about political types ranting at reporters. In one case, it was a physical attack by a candidate in Montana, and the other was an extreme, expletive-laden verbal abuse by a presidential lawyer against a reporter.
Both incidents were made public and reported by the reporters involved, and soon went viral on the internet, on broadcast news channels and in print.
So the lesson to public officials, candidates, corporate executives and others is this: If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it. And if you don't want your verbal or physical abusive threats and other tactics made public, don't beat up on people, especially reporters.
First off, it's illegal. Second, it's immoral. Finally, it's self-defeating.
The consequences are these: Imprisonment or monetary fine, tarnish to your reputation, and it can lead to an election loss, a job loss, or revenue loss as clients abandon you.
Oh, and there's one other reason even more powerful than the others.
It's stupid.
Monday, May 29, 2017
The Right to Criticize
Here be dragons. -- Medieval warning to those traveling to unknown waters
"Nothing's riding on this except the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of this country." -- Ben Bradlee, managing editor of the Washington Post, to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the film, "All the President's Men."
The only weapon journalism has against corruption and wrongdoing is embarrassment. Some, however, especially politicians, are so full of themselves that they can't be embarrassed, no matter how strong the evidence.
Nevertheless, they persist.
Soon enough, however, those with the legal authority to investigate, indict, prosecute and convict are themselves embarrassed into taking action against corruption, wrongdoing or whatever else they previously either did not know about, didn't care about, or were at some level ignoring. This includes impeachable offenses by a sitting president.
Attacking critics, meanwhile, cannot suppress criticism. At least, not in a constitutionally protected free society. Once a society loses the right to criticize, it loses a basic freedom -- the right of free speech, free speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
Of course, the right to criticize is available to both sides of any issue, and that right is limited only by the laws of libel.
Embarrassment, however, is not libelous, especially if the information is true.
Nevertheless, those with some political power often try to suppress criticism by hurling insult and abuse at critics and protestors, even threatening them with violence and prison unless they conform.
But it's not journalism's job to conform to the wishes, the agenda, even the orders of anyone, especially government officials.
To do so would be to abandon the First Amendment right of free speech and of the press, as well as journalism's duty and responsibility to citizens. And beyond that point be dragons of disaster.
Meanwhile, a free, independent and responsible press will continue to probe for truth beyond the allegations and behavior of those holding elective office, as well as of their associates and companions.
To fail in this duty would be to abandon their commitment to keep citizens informed of what their government is up to.
"Nothing's riding on this except the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of this country." -- Ben Bradlee, managing editor of the Washington Post, to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the film, "All the President's Men."
The only weapon journalism has against corruption and wrongdoing is embarrassment. Some, however, especially politicians, are so full of themselves that they can't be embarrassed, no matter how strong the evidence.
Nevertheless, they persist.
Soon enough, however, those with the legal authority to investigate, indict, prosecute and convict are themselves embarrassed into taking action against corruption, wrongdoing or whatever else they previously either did not know about, didn't care about, or were at some level ignoring. This includes impeachable offenses by a sitting president.
Attacking critics, meanwhile, cannot suppress criticism. At least, not in a constitutionally protected free society. Once a society loses the right to criticize, it loses a basic freedom -- the right of free speech, free speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
Of course, the right to criticize is available to both sides of any issue, and that right is limited only by the laws of libel.
Embarrassment, however, is not libelous, especially if the information is true.
Nevertheless, those with some political power often try to suppress criticism by hurling insult and abuse at critics and protestors, even threatening them with violence and prison unless they conform.
But it's not journalism's job to conform to the wishes, the agenda, even the orders of anyone, especially government officials.
To do so would be to abandon the First Amendment right of free speech and of the press, as well as journalism's duty and responsibility to citizens. And beyond that point be dragons of disaster.
Meanwhile, a free, independent and responsible press will continue to probe for truth beyond the allegations and behavior of those holding elective office, as well as of their associates and companions.
To fail in this duty would be to abandon their commitment to keep citizens informed of what their government is up to.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Meet the Press. Please
Ignoring questions doesn't make them go away.
The president of the United States is due back from his eight-day trip to the Middle East and Europe, and one wonders when, whether or even if he will hold a press conference to explain his accomplishments and goals.
He has not spoken directly to journalists all week, and one wonders why. One defensive claim from his team is that he has been too busy.
Too busy to chat with representatives of the American people?
C'mon, Big Guy. Ignoring the questions doesn't make them go away, much as you might want them to. And cancelling daily news briefings by your designated spokesman, as you have threatened, won't work either.
Journalists ask questions on behalf of the American people. To ignore the press is to ignore the American people.
A reality is that news media folk don't work for you, so you can't fire them. Rather, it's the other way around. Just like any other elected person or representative, you work for the people.
And citizens can say to elected officials, "You're fired."
"We, the people of the United States of America," did this once before in 1776. And in case you have forgotten your high school history course (or were you not paying attention then, either?) let this be a reminder.
"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive" of certain unalienable rights, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."
You, of course, have the right to remain silent in the face of these questions. But journalists, members of Congress and prosecutors have the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to ask questions, to probe through alibis, excuses and "alternative facts" to document truth and expose abuses, manipulations and lies.
The alternative would be for the American people, their elected representatives and professional news gatherers to "sit down and be quiet."
It doesn't work that way. We don't work for you. In America, it's the other way around.
Ordering reporters won't stop them from digging. Rather, they view that as a challenge, prompting them to dig even faster and deeper.
Meet the press, Mr. President, and answer their questions. Refusing to do so only means you're hiding something, and diligent reporters will find wrongdoings on behalf of the American public, and describe them.
Get used to it. We the people will not meekly sit down. We will not shut up, and the questions will not go away.
That's the way the American political game is played, and if you don't like it, you're free to quit.
Or be fired. That's in the Constitution also. Look it up.
The president of the United States is due back from his eight-day trip to the Middle East and Europe, and one wonders when, whether or even if he will hold a press conference to explain his accomplishments and goals.
He has not spoken directly to journalists all week, and one wonders why. One defensive claim from his team is that he has been too busy.
Too busy to chat with representatives of the American people?
C'mon, Big Guy. Ignoring the questions doesn't make them go away, much as you might want them to. And cancelling daily news briefings by your designated spokesman, as you have threatened, won't work either.
Journalists ask questions on behalf of the American people. To ignore the press is to ignore the American people.
A reality is that news media folk don't work for you, so you can't fire them. Rather, it's the other way around. Just like any other elected person or representative, you work for the people.
And citizens can say to elected officials, "You're fired."
"We, the people of the United States of America," did this once before in 1776. And in case you have forgotten your high school history course (or were you not paying attention then, either?) let this be a reminder.
"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive" of certain unalienable rights, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."
You, of course, have the right to remain silent in the face of these questions. But journalists, members of Congress and prosecutors have the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to ask questions, to probe through alibis, excuses and "alternative facts" to document truth and expose abuses, manipulations and lies.
The alternative would be for the American people, their elected representatives and professional news gatherers to "sit down and be quiet."
It doesn't work that way. We don't work for you. In America, it's the other way around.
Ordering reporters won't stop them from digging. Rather, they view that as a challenge, prompting them to dig even faster and deeper.
Meet the press, Mr. President, and answer their questions. Refusing to do so only means you're hiding something, and diligent reporters will find wrongdoings on behalf of the American public, and describe them.
Get used to it. We the people will not meekly sit down. We will not shut up, and the questions will not go away.
That's the way the American political game is played, and if you don't like it, you're free to quit.
Or be fired. That's in the Constitution also. Look it up.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Economic Reality Check
The American economy is continuing its upward path, but as for growing fast enough to support the rosy projections underlying the administration's budget plan for the coming fiscal year, as the Brooklyn vernacular would put it, "Fuhgedaboudit."
The Commerce Department said gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2017, a better rate than the preliminary estimate of 0.7 percent, but not as good as the fourth quarter 2016 pace of 2.1 percent.
Moreover, profits from current production fell by $40.3 billion in the first three months of the year, after increasing by $11.2 billion as 2016 ended.
All of which suggests that the Federal Reserve will monitor more closely economic data through the spring and summer, and will think twice before raising interest rates soon. The Fed has said several times that it would boost its key interest rates to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In contrast, the president's budget proposal anticipates strong growth that would override tax cuts even as it sharply reduces government aid and spending on a wide variety of social and environmental programs.
The proposed budget calculates strong and steady growth of more than 2 percent and as much as 3 percent every year over the next ten years that would lead to a reduced deficit and a balanced federal budget.
Clear-eyed economists and budget specialists have looked at this scenario and asked, what dream world is he living in?
The Commerce Department said gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2017, a better rate than the preliminary estimate of 0.7 percent, but not as good as the fourth quarter 2016 pace of 2.1 percent.
Moreover, profits from current production fell by $40.3 billion in the first three months of the year, after increasing by $11.2 billion as 2016 ended.
All of which suggests that the Federal Reserve will monitor more closely economic data through the spring and summer, and will think twice before raising interest rates soon. The Fed has said several times that it would boost its key interest rates to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In contrast, the president's budget proposal anticipates strong growth that would override tax cuts even as it sharply reduces government aid and spending on a wide variety of social and environmental programs.
The proposed budget calculates strong and steady growth of more than 2 percent and as much as 3 percent every year over the next ten years that would lead to a reduced deficit and a balanced federal budget.
Clear-eyed economists and budget specialists have looked at this scenario and asked, what dream world is he living in?
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Setting an Example
The pen is mightier than the body slam.
"Get 'em out of here," said presidential candidate Donald Trump about protestors.
"Get the hell out of here," said House candidate Greg Gianforte, Republican of Montana, to a reporter just before punching the reporter.
After assault charges were filed against the candidate, Gianforte aides claimed the reporter was "an aggressive liberal" who "badgered" the candidate by "shouting" questions at him "without permission."
But a recording of the encounter with Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian newspaper, revealed no shouting or badgering. Rather, it showed courtesy in the reporter's speech even after he was choked, knocked down and punched by the candidate.
Moreover, this version of the incident was confirmed by several members of a Fox News TV crew, who were in the same room preparing for an interview with Gianforte.
There are, of course, aggressive reporters, some of whom may indeed resort to shouting questions in order to be heard over a crowd of other aggressive reporters.
But in America, anyone is free to ask any question of any other person at any time. We may not get an answer, but we are at least free to ask, just as the other person has a right not to answer. Both these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, under the First and the Fifth Amendments.
Anyone who has watched a White House press briefing can see what Sean Spicer faces every day as reporters pepper the administration's spokesman with questions. And if Gianforte succeeds in getting to Congress, he will have to face the same Washington press corps.
The president has not been known to personally punch out a pesky reporter (yet), but he has a history of insulting the news media generally and some reporters specifically. In addition, there is the video of the president pushing aside the prime minister of Montenegro in order to get to the front rank of national leaders at a NATO meeting.
There are also reports of the Blabbermouth in Chief loosely talking about secret intelligence information to foreign officials, in addition to the many examples of bullying behavior toward anyone who displeases him.
America has been trying to live up to the standards of civility set forth in the founding documents of the nation. People have not always succeeded, but at least there have been government leaders who have shown civil behavior as an example for the rest of American citizens to follow.
This president has set a poor example.
"Get 'em out of here," said presidential candidate Donald Trump about protestors.
"Get the hell out of here," said House candidate Greg Gianforte, Republican of Montana, to a reporter just before punching the reporter.
After assault charges were filed against the candidate, Gianforte aides claimed the reporter was "an aggressive liberal" who "badgered" the candidate by "shouting" questions at him "without permission."
But a recording of the encounter with Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian newspaper, revealed no shouting or badgering. Rather, it showed courtesy in the reporter's speech even after he was choked, knocked down and punched by the candidate.
Moreover, this version of the incident was confirmed by several members of a Fox News TV crew, who were in the same room preparing for an interview with Gianforte.
There are, of course, aggressive reporters, some of whom may indeed resort to shouting questions in order to be heard over a crowd of other aggressive reporters.
But in America, anyone is free to ask any question of any other person at any time. We may not get an answer, but we are at least free to ask, just as the other person has a right not to answer. Both these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, under the First and the Fifth Amendments.
Anyone who has watched a White House press briefing can see what Sean Spicer faces every day as reporters pepper the administration's spokesman with questions. And if Gianforte succeeds in getting to Congress, he will have to face the same Washington press corps.
The president has not been known to personally punch out a pesky reporter (yet), but he has a history of insulting the news media generally and some reporters specifically. In addition, there is the video of the president pushing aside the prime minister of Montenegro in order to get to the front rank of national leaders at a NATO meeting.
There are also reports of the Blabbermouth in Chief loosely talking about secret intelligence information to foreign officials, in addition to the many examples of bullying behavior toward anyone who displeases him.
America has been trying to live up to the standards of civility set forth in the founding documents of the nation. People have not always succeeded, but at least there have been government leaders who have shown civil behavior as an example for the rest of American citizens to follow.
This president has set a poor example.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Rapid Shuffle
Did they think nobody would notice?
Creative accounting and rapid shuffling of numbers may work for a while in the corporate world and in casino operations, but when it comes to politics, government and federal budgets, more people are watching more closely, and are quicker to point out when things don't add up.
The House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), also known as Trumpcare, would reduce the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but it would also leave 23 million people without health insurance over that same time period.
The largest savings, the CBO report said, would come from reductions in Medicaid outlays and from replacing subsidies for Obamacare programs with tax credits.
From an estimated 14 million people losing health insurance next year, that number would rise to 19 million in 2020 and 23 million in 2026. The total number of uninsured people under age 65 would reach 51 million in 2026, the CBO said.
Moreover, as premiums rise on individual policies, those without some form of government assistance to purchase health insurance would simply go without, according to the CBO analysis.
Separately, the Federal Reserve Board released the minutes of its most recent Open Market Committee, in which members agreed to continue its close watch on national economic activity. A recent slowdown in the first quarter of the year appeared to be "transitory," but the overall growth picture seemed promising. Even so, the board will continue to monitor economic data before easing its monetary stimulus program.
Combine that attitude with the president's budget proposal based on an economic growth rate of 3 percent or more. Recent data have put the pace at almost 2 percent, and sometimes struggling to reach that mark.
Or as some have put it, the president's budget proposal is wishful thinking run amok.
Creative accounting and rapid shuffling of numbers may work for a while in the corporate world and in casino operations, but when it comes to politics, government and federal budgets, more people are watching more closely, and are quicker to point out when things don't add up.
The House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), also known as Trumpcare, would reduce the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but it would also leave 23 million people without health insurance over that same time period.
The largest savings, the CBO report said, would come from reductions in Medicaid outlays and from replacing subsidies for Obamacare programs with tax credits.
From an estimated 14 million people losing health insurance next year, that number would rise to 19 million in 2020 and 23 million in 2026. The total number of uninsured people under age 65 would reach 51 million in 2026, the CBO said.
Moreover, as premiums rise on individual policies, those without some form of government assistance to purchase health insurance would simply go without, according to the CBO analysis.
Separately, the Federal Reserve Board released the minutes of its most recent Open Market Committee, in which members agreed to continue its close watch on national economic activity. A recent slowdown in the first quarter of the year appeared to be "transitory," but the overall growth picture seemed promising. Even so, the board will continue to monitor economic data before easing its monetary stimulus program.
Combine that attitude with the president's budget proposal based on an economic growth rate of 3 percent or more. Recent data have put the pace at almost 2 percent, and sometimes struggling to reach that mark.
Or as some have put it, the president's budget proposal is wishful thinking run amok.
Austerity
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.
In the guise of "rescuing" an economy that he claims to be broken, the president has proposed what is, in effect, an austerity budget that severely cuts spending on programs to help those in need.
Paradoxically, the plan also reduces revenue by sharply reducing taxes on those with plenty, even as it calls for more spending for the military.
But the economy is doing reasonably well, with some regions of the country unable to find enough workers to take jobs available. The unemployment rate nationally is down and employment is up as workers respond to the demand. At the same time, the supply of workers is down. Result: Wages rise, responding to a concept taught in Economics 101.
Meanwhile, analysts have pointed out that the budget at one point lists revenue from the federal estate tax as contributing to the plan to balance, even as the president has promised to eliminate that same tax.
Sounds like borrowing from Peter to pay Peter.
Democrats and even some Republicans are weighing to say the plan is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. And Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania warned that Betsy DeVos, the new secretary of education, "has no experience with public education," and prefers to eliminate student loan protections as well as cut public school programs "in order to boost for-profit charter schools with little oversight."
Nearly every aspect of the proposed budget -- according to what little detail there is -- would sharply reduce federal spending and reduce taxes as a way to revive the economy.
But the economy isn't dead. The Great Recession is long since over. And any plan that would reduce government revenue while it increases total spending -- for example, on the military, where costs of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan are more than $3 billion monthly and the Pentagon wants another 5,000 troops -- will very likely lead to another economic recession.
Consider a lesson from history: Britain could not pacify Afghanistan in the 19th Century, and Russia could not settle things in the 20th Century. The U.S. has been trying for nearly 20 years. When will they ever learn?
The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.
In the guise of "rescuing" an economy that he claims to be broken, the president has proposed what is, in effect, an austerity budget that severely cuts spending on programs to help those in need.
Paradoxically, the plan also reduces revenue by sharply reducing taxes on those with plenty, even as it calls for more spending for the military.
But the economy is doing reasonably well, with some regions of the country unable to find enough workers to take jobs available. The unemployment rate nationally is down and employment is up as workers respond to the demand. At the same time, the supply of workers is down. Result: Wages rise, responding to a concept taught in Economics 101.
Meanwhile, analysts have pointed out that the budget at one point lists revenue from the federal estate tax as contributing to the plan to balance, even as the president has promised to eliminate that same tax.
Sounds like borrowing from Peter to pay Peter.
Democrats and even some Republicans are weighing to say the plan is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. And Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania warned that Betsy DeVos, the new secretary of education, "has no experience with public education," and prefers to eliminate student loan protections as well as cut public school programs "in order to boost for-profit charter schools with little oversight."
Nearly every aspect of the proposed budget -- according to what little detail there is -- would sharply reduce federal spending and reduce taxes as a way to revive the economy.
But the economy isn't dead. The Great Recession is long since over. And any plan that would reduce government revenue while it increases total spending -- for example, on the military, where costs of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan are more than $3 billion monthly and the Pentagon wants another 5,000 troops -- will very likely lead to another economic recession.
Consider a lesson from history: Britain could not pacify Afghanistan in the 19th Century, and Russia could not settle things in the 20th Century. The U.S. has been trying for nearly 20 years. When will they ever learn?
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Comfort for the Comfortable
A major goal of journalism is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The federal budget proposed for the coming fiscal year does the opposite, and breaks promises made to Americans during the presidential campaign. As outlined, it will comfort the comfortable with sweeping reductions in taxes, and afflict the already afflicted by massive cuts in funding for education, health care and other social welfare programs.
Details are readily available in widespread news reports as well as in the budget itself, reachable on government web sites.
As noted here several days ago, the Administration's economic policies, reflected in the proposed budget, amount to an attempt to revive the concept of trickle-down economics, which preaches that tax cuts for the wealthy will eventually trickle down through the rest of society, bringing renewed prosperity for all.
The new budget assumes an economic growth rate of 3 percent, spurred by lower taxes, which would loosen more cash available for purchases and investment in production, which would provide more jobs, which would improve wages, which would attract more workers, who would then have more ability to buy more stuff, which would boost the economy even more.
A heroic assumption, at best.
Providing more money for those who already have plenty assumes they will actually spend it, and not simply stuff it in their already stuffed bank accounts.
Another assumption is that bankers will actually make this additional money available for lending to expand production facilities, and not shore up their own corporate bottom line and share prices.
It also assumes that producers will actually expand production, to meet yet another assumption -- increased demand from consumers.
But if the additional cash has not yet trickled down to consumers, they won't be able to increase their demand for more products and services, growth potential stalls.
The only ones who benefit from the initial infusion of cash from tax breaks will be those at the top.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is already growing at the reasonable rate of almost 2 percent yearly. To expect that rate to jump to 3 percent -- or more, according to campaign promises -- is not only unreasonable, it is also unrealistic to the point of being a dream. And the consequences of sharp reductions in federal spending on aid to education, health care, Medicaid, poverty assistance and other social welfare programs are nightmarish to millions of Americans.
Supporting the argument for massive budget cuts in these programs is the Republican claim that it restores freedom of choice to American citizens.
As if people become sick by choice, just to annoy wealthy conservatives.
But they have a right to choose a health insurance plan that they feel is right for them, not one that's dictated by government, goes the argument. Perhaps, but if people are out of work or are already sick, they cannot purchase a health insurance policy. Or if they try, the premiums are so high they can't afford one. So they go without medical care.
Then it's their own fault when they get sick, retort the conservatives. They can always go to a hospital emergency room to get well, they say.
Wrong. Hospital emergency rooms are only required to stabilize the patient. To a large extent, after that they're on their own, and if admitted they are later pestered to pay the bill.
And if they can't, the hospital spreads the loss to other patients and insurance companies in the form of higher prices.
Better to expand social welfare programs to everyone in society, so everyone benefits from better education, better training, better employment opportunities and better health care.
That way everyone benefits, not just the 1 percent who don't need help.
The federal budget proposed for the coming fiscal year does the opposite, and breaks promises made to Americans during the presidential campaign. As outlined, it will comfort the comfortable with sweeping reductions in taxes, and afflict the already afflicted by massive cuts in funding for education, health care and other social welfare programs.
Details are readily available in widespread news reports as well as in the budget itself, reachable on government web sites.
As noted here several days ago, the Administration's economic policies, reflected in the proposed budget, amount to an attempt to revive the concept of trickle-down economics, which preaches that tax cuts for the wealthy will eventually trickle down through the rest of society, bringing renewed prosperity for all.
The new budget assumes an economic growth rate of 3 percent, spurred by lower taxes, which would loosen more cash available for purchases and investment in production, which would provide more jobs, which would improve wages, which would attract more workers, who would then have more ability to buy more stuff, which would boost the economy even more.
A heroic assumption, at best.
Providing more money for those who already have plenty assumes they will actually spend it, and not simply stuff it in their already stuffed bank accounts.
Another assumption is that bankers will actually make this additional money available for lending to expand production facilities, and not shore up their own corporate bottom line and share prices.
It also assumes that producers will actually expand production, to meet yet another assumption -- increased demand from consumers.
But if the additional cash has not yet trickled down to consumers, they won't be able to increase their demand for more products and services, growth potential stalls.
The only ones who benefit from the initial infusion of cash from tax breaks will be those at the top.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is already growing at the reasonable rate of almost 2 percent yearly. To expect that rate to jump to 3 percent -- or more, according to campaign promises -- is not only unreasonable, it is also unrealistic to the point of being a dream. And the consequences of sharp reductions in federal spending on aid to education, health care, Medicaid, poverty assistance and other social welfare programs are nightmarish to millions of Americans.
Supporting the argument for massive budget cuts in these programs is the Republican claim that it restores freedom of choice to American citizens.
As if people become sick by choice, just to annoy wealthy conservatives.
But they have a right to choose a health insurance plan that they feel is right for them, not one that's dictated by government, goes the argument. Perhaps, but if people are out of work or are already sick, they cannot purchase a health insurance policy. Or if they try, the premiums are so high they can't afford one. So they go without medical care.
Then it's their own fault when they get sick, retort the conservatives. They can always go to a hospital emergency room to get well, they say.
Wrong. Hospital emergency rooms are only required to stabilize the patient. To a large extent, after that they're on their own, and if admitted they are later pestered to pay the bill.
And if they can't, the hospital spreads the loss to other patients and insurance companies in the form of higher prices.
Better to expand social welfare programs to everyone in society, so everyone benefits from better education, better training, better employment opportunities and better health care.
That way everyone benefits, not just the 1 percent who don't need help.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Context
Beware of absolutes
"No politician in history has been treated worse or more unfairly," said Donald Trump.
To put that claim in some historical context, consider these non-alternative facts:
Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated: John F. Kennedy, William McKinley, James A. Garfield and Abraham Lincoln.
Ronald Reagan was shot while in office, but recovered.
Robert Kennedy was slain during a campaign for the presidency.
George C. Wallace, former governor of Alabama and a presidential candidate, was shot and seriously wounded.
Huey Long, a U.S. senator and governor of Louisiana, was assassinated.
Martin Luther King, a civil rights leader, was shot and killed.
Medgar Evers, a civil rights leader, was shot and killed.
George Moscone, mayor of San Francisco, shot and killed.
Harvey Milk, member of the San Francisco board of supervisors, shot and killed the same day as the mayor.
Theodore Roosevelt, shot and wounded after he served as president. The bullet remained in his body until he died.
Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment.
Bill Clinton, impeached but not convicted.
Andrew Johnson, impeached but not convicted.
Spiro Agnew, resigned as vice president.
Also, consider Nelson Mandela, who was jailed for many years because of his political activities.
Now consider these historical figures, who were indeed treated very badly.
Julius Caesar, who was assassinated.
King George III of England, roundly criticized for his treatment of American colonists, who listed their complaints in detail in the Declaration of Independence, issued on July 4, 1776.
Or King Louis XVI of France, executed for treason by the guillotine in 1793.
Or Czar Nicholas II of Russia, executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918.
Or Benito Mussolini, who was killed by a mob and strung up by his heels in a public square.
Whether these men deserved such treatment is another issue. The fact remains that the treatment was indeed harsh.
There are certainly many other politicians, in America and throughout the world, who have been treated badly, by the news media as well as by their competitors and opponents.
The lesson here is to beware of absolutes. There will always be an editor to counter such comments with alternative information to puncture your inflated claims.
The danger to America is when efforts are made to stifle criticism and fact-finding.
Violence is not the answer. Tough questions to probe for truth is part of the solution.
"No politician in history has been treated worse or more unfairly," said Donald Trump.
To put that claim in some historical context, consider these non-alternative facts:
Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated: John F. Kennedy, William McKinley, James A. Garfield and Abraham Lincoln.
Ronald Reagan was shot while in office, but recovered.
Robert Kennedy was slain during a campaign for the presidency.
George C. Wallace, former governor of Alabama and a presidential candidate, was shot and seriously wounded.
Huey Long, a U.S. senator and governor of Louisiana, was assassinated.
Martin Luther King, a civil rights leader, was shot and killed.
Medgar Evers, a civil rights leader, was shot and killed.
George Moscone, mayor of San Francisco, shot and killed.
Harvey Milk, member of the San Francisco board of supervisors, shot and killed the same day as the mayor.
Theodore Roosevelt, shot and wounded after he served as president. The bullet remained in his body until he died.
Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment.
Bill Clinton, impeached but not convicted.
Andrew Johnson, impeached but not convicted.
Spiro Agnew, resigned as vice president.
Also, consider Nelson Mandela, who was jailed for many years because of his political activities.
Now consider these historical figures, who were indeed treated very badly.
Julius Caesar, who was assassinated.
King George III of England, roundly criticized for his treatment of American colonists, who listed their complaints in detail in the Declaration of Independence, issued on July 4, 1776.
Or King Louis XVI of France, executed for treason by the guillotine in 1793.
Or Czar Nicholas II of Russia, executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918.
Or Benito Mussolini, who was killed by a mob and strung up by his heels in a public square.
Whether these men deserved such treatment is another issue. The fact remains that the treatment was indeed harsh.
There are certainly many other politicians, in America and throughout the world, who have been treated badly, by the news media as well as by their competitors and opponents.
The lesson here is to beware of absolutes. There will always be an editor to counter such comments with alternative information to puncture your inflated claims.
The danger to America is when efforts are made to stifle criticism and fact-finding.
Violence is not the answer. Tough questions to probe for truth is part of the solution.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Watchdogs of Democracy
Reporters can indeed be nuisances, especially when officials prefer secrecy. Like canine watchdogs, they can yip and yap at unusual doings, prompting annoyance among people who want to do their thing without being noticed. Often, however, early barking is warranted.
Adversarial journalism, moreover, is a part of political life. This is not to say that reporters should be rude and discourteous, although some really are and others are perceived to be so.
The important thing is that reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and members of the news media press for information on behalf of the general public.
And yes, sometimes there is a conflict between a need to know and a right to know, or even a desire to know. Then the question becomes, who decides, the politician or the public?
Curiosity is often not reason enough. There is sometimes a thin line between news and gossip, and editors consider that dilemma every day.
Currently, editors are making decisions like this almost hourly, weighing consequences to national security against citizens' right to know, their need to know what political leaders are up to and whether officials are really behaving in a rational manner, or whether their actions, comments and decisions fall within the bounds of legality.
Thanks to investigative reporters at major news outlets, assisted by conscientious insiders privy to important information, the world is learning details of the many times officials in Washington break the rules of acceptable, legal and constitutional behavior.
In the coming week, Congress will hear testimony from those involved in recent controversies connected to the White House, and their effects on American democracy.
Were it not for vigilant journalism, these issues -- some of which could lead to impeachment of the president and jail time for others -- may not have become public knowledge.
There is currently no federal shield law protecting journalists who refuse to divulge confidential sources, and several reporters have gone to jail rather than name their confidants.
Some in government, including the current White House, insist that a leak is a bigger crime than the information detailing potentially illegal behavior by officials. Nonetheless, reporters persist in their First Amendment duty to inform the public of news that is important.
If not for such reports recently, the attorney general may not have named a special counsel to dig deeper into the issues currently entangling the administration in a web of inappropriate and possibly illegal and impeachable behavior.
But what if the Office of Special Counsel loses its funding for the coming fiscal year?
The administration is to present its budget for the fiscal year beginning this fall, and it will be interesting to discover how much funding for the investigators is provided.
In addition, a bill being considered by the Senate (S.582), would authorize expenses for the Office of Special Counsel as well as extend new legal protections for federal employees known as whistleblowers who report abuse, fraud and waste related to government activities.
Suppose the president vetoes this bill?
What then?
Adversarial journalism, moreover, is a part of political life. This is not to say that reporters should be rude and discourteous, although some really are and others are perceived to be so.
The important thing is that reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and members of the news media press for information on behalf of the general public.
And yes, sometimes there is a conflict between a need to know and a right to know, or even a desire to know. Then the question becomes, who decides, the politician or the public?
Curiosity is often not reason enough. There is sometimes a thin line between news and gossip, and editors consider that dilemma every day.
Currently, editors are making decisions like this almost hourly, weighing consequences to national security against citizens' right to know, their need to know what political leaders are up to and whether officials are really behaving in a rational manner, or whether their actions, comments and decisions fall within the bounds of legality.
Thanks to investigative reporters at major news outlets, assisted by conscientious insiders privy to important information, the world is learning details of the many times officials in Washington break the rules of acceptable, legal and constitutional behavior.
In the coming week, Congress will hear testimony from those involved in recent controversies connected to the White House, and their effects on American democracy.
Were it not for vigilant journalism, these issues -- some of which could lead to impeachment of the president and jail time for others -- may not have become public knowledge.
There is currently no federal shield law protecting journalists who refuse to divulge confidential sources, and several reporters have gone to jail rather than name their confidants.
Some in government, including the current White House, insist that a leak is a bigger crime than the information detailing potentially illegal behavior by officials. Nonetheless, reporters persist in their First Amendment duty to inform the public of news that is important.
If not for such reports recently, the attorney general may not have named a special counsel to dig deeper into the issues currently entangling the administration in a web of inappropriate and possibly illegal and impeachable behavior.
But what if the Office of Special Counsel loses its funding for the coming fiscal year?
The administration is to present its budget for the fiscal year beginning this fall, and it will be interesting to discover how much funding for the investigators is provided.
In addition, a bill being considered by the Senate (S.582), would authorize expenses for the Office of Special Counsel as well as extend new legal protections for federal employees known as whistleblowers who report abuse, fraud and waste related to government activities.
Suppose the president vetoes this bill?
What then?
Friday, May 19, 2017
Budget Blues
More money for the wealthy does not mean more food for the poor.
On Tuesday, the president is to release his budget plan for the coming fiscal year, featuring a goal to balance federal income and expenses in ten years.
Early reports estimate that there will be major cuts in social safety programs, along with major reductions in taxes and regulations.
So far, it sounds like a replay of trickle down economics, which claims that tax breaks for the wealthy means more money available for investment, production and jobs.
The last time this was tried, however, in the name of stimulating economic growth, it was called Reaganomics and voodoo economics, and the result was a slide into recession and deeper debt.
Tax cuts for the wealthy don't lead to economic growth. Instead, the beneficiaries stash the extra funds in their own bank accounts. And banks, rather than increase their loan volume, use the additional cash to shore up their bottom line, boost shareholder value, and hike salaries and bonuses for top executives.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is relatively healthy and growing at a good, albeit modest, pace of about 2 percent annually. But since it's a mature economy, a sudden or rapid spurt can be hazardous to its health.
And despite claims by the Braggart in Chief about saving jobs, some major American firms are cutting their payrolls to boost corporate profits.
Partly they can do this because worker productivity is up and unit labor cost is down, according to a summary by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Overall, unemployment rates were lower in April in 10 states, higher in 1 state and stable in 39 states and the District of Columbia, the BLS said. Nationally, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent. In Colorado, the jobless rate was 2.3 percent, the lowest in the nation, followed by Hawaii and North Dakota, at 2.7 percent each. Alaska posted the highest unemployment rate, 6.6 percent.
Over the year, 28 states had increases in nonfarm payroll employment, the BLS said.
And a report by the Federal Reserve Board said "Americans' financial well-being in 2016 continued on a modest upward path, although the improvement was less pronounced for those with less education."
So as the resident cynic Pug Mahoney insists, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But cutting taxes for those who already have plenty, while those who don't are just beginning to feel a bit better about their economic health face rising costs and less social welfare help when needed, presents an economic dichotomy that will quickly lead to friction between the Haves and the Have Less groups in America.
In short, by whatever name it's called -- trickle down economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics, and now Trumponomics -- such a strategy quite simply does not work, and only leads to an economic bust rather than boom.
To insist otherwise is to mislead the public down a two-lane fiscal road where the wealthy accelerate their already expensive vehicles and leave average household trundling along in the economic slow lane.
On Tuesday, the president is to release his budget plan for the coming fiscal year, featuring a goal to balance federal income and expenses in ten years.
Early reports estimate that there will be major cuts in social safety programs, along with major reductions in taxes and regulations.
So far, it sounds like a replay of trickle down economics, which claims that tax breaks for the wealthy means more money available for investment, production and jobs.
The last time this was tried, however, in the name of stimulating economic growth, it was called Reaganomics and voodoo economics, and the result was a slide into recession and deeper debt.
Tax cuts for the wealthy don't lead to economic growth. Instead, the beneficiaries stash the extra funds in their own bank accounts. And banks, rather than increase their loan volume, use the additional cash to shore up their bottom line, boost shareholder value, and hike salaries and bonuses for top executives.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is relatively healthy and growing at a good, albeit modest, pace of about 2 percent annually. But since it's a mature economy, a sudden or rapid spurt can be hazardous to its health.
And despite claims by the Braggart in Chief about saving jobs, some major American firms are cutting their payrolls to boost corporate profits.
Partly they can do this because worker productivity is up and unit labor cost is down, according to a summary by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Overall, unemployment rates were lower in April in 10 states, higher in 1 state and stable in 39 states and the District of Columbia, the BLS said. Nationally, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent. In Colorado, the jobless rate was 2.3 percent, the lowest in the nation, followed by Hawaii and North Dakota, at 2.7 percent each. Alaska posted the highest unemployment rate, 6.6 percent.
Over the year, 28 states had increases in nonfarm payroll employment, the BLS said.
And a report by the Federal Reserve Board said "Americans' financial well-being in 2016 continued on a modest upward path, although the improvement was less pronounced for those with less education."
So as the resident cynic Pug Mahoney insists, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But cutting taxes for those who already have plenty, while those who don't are just beginning to feel a bit better about their economic health face rising costs and less social welfare help when needed, presents an economic dichotomy that will quickly lead to friction between the Haves and the Have Less groups in America.
In short, by whatever name it's called -- trickle down economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics, and now Trumponomics -- such a strategy quite simply does not work, and only leads to an economic bust rather than boom.
To insist otherwise is to mislead the public down a two-lane fiscal road where the wealthy accelerate their already expensive vehicles and leave average household trundling along in the economic slow lane.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Flunking the Course
The president has now committed what, to a copy editor, is the ultimate sin -- he can't spell.
His latest: He attacked the "special councel" assigned to investigate recent White House doings. (He later tweeted a correction.)
Couple that with his limited knowledge of history (he said "no politician in history has been treated worse" than he has been treated -- Richard Nixon comes to mind, as well as Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, both of whom were impeached but not convicted -- as well as his own repeated attacks on Barack Obama with the "birther" issue) and a sixth grade teacher would assign an F for the marking period.
His latest: He attacked the "special councel" assigned to investigate recent White House doings. (He later tweeted a correction.)
Couple that with his limited knowledge of history (he said "no politician in history has been treated worse" than he has been treated -- Richard Nixon comes to mind, as well as Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, both of whom were impeached but not convicted -- as well as his own repeated attacks on Barack Obama with the "birther" issue) and a sixth grade teacher would assign an F for the marking period.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Pobrecito
"Look at the way I've been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history has been treated worse or more unfairly." -- President Donald Trump in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.
Awww. Poor baby. Those nasty, unfair, fake and failing journalism outlets have done nothing but report to the American people just what he says and does.
And that's so unfair. Those terrible, horrible, vicious news people refuse to do what they're told. They don't report what's in his heart, but insist on publicizing what comes out of his mouth.
Of course, when he contradicts not only himself but also his staffers who try to put a better spin on what he says it's not his fault that readers and TV viewers are confused. The news media is really to blame for not changing the narrative to reflect a better, favorable story. After all, as Himself has said, "I'm the president, and you're not."
Journalist must report the truth, and the truth is that which he says at any given moment. If he says something in the next moment that is the opposite, then that is more true than what was said in the first moment.
It's an alternative fact, and is more true than the basic fact that may have been said earlier. Viewers, listeners and readers should disremember what was said earlier, because Fact Two has more truth than Fact One. Why? Because he said so. Whatever he says at any given moment is true. Some facts are more true than other facts.
Meanwhile, journalists are going bonkers trying to keep up with developments as the current president races toward impeachment. Democrats in Congress are demanding that the process start. Even some Republicans, denizens of the president's own political party, are acknowledging that it's time to collect all the facts.
Also, the deputy attorney general has named a special counsel to lead an investigation into charges that Russia may have tried to manipulate last November's presidential election.
This will likely include probing allegations that the president call for the FBI to stop investigating his former national security advisor, as well as the "coincidence" that James Comey, who had been the FBI director, was fired after he reportedly refused to pledge his personal loyalty to the president, and to drop the investigation. The next day, the president fired the FBI director.
All this information and more was disclosed to the public by journalists.
But all of the disclosures are fake and phony, perpetrated by the unfair media, according to a man whose ignorance of history, geography, law and Constitutional principles has been demonstrated many times during the election campaign and since the inauguration.
His credibility gap is now wider than the Grand Canyon, prompting investigations by Congress and a special counsel to follow up on news reports detailing potentially impeachable offenses.
Even House Speaker Paul Ryan is echoing Sgt. Joe Friday in "Dragnet," the TV series, "Just the facts, Ma'am."
The evidence and the facts are piling up.
Awww. Poor baby. Those nasty, unfair, fake and failing journalism outlets have done nothing but report to the American people just what he says and does.
And that's so unfair. Those terrible, horrible, vicious news people refuse to do what they're told. They don't report what's in his heart, but insist on publicizing what comes out of his mouth.
Of course, when he contradicts not only himself but also his staffers who try to put a better spin on what he says it's not his fault that readers and TV viewers are confused. The news media is really to blame for not changing the narrative to reflect a better, favorable story. After all, as Himself has said, "I'm the president, and you're not."
Journalist must report the truth, and the truth is that which he says at any given moment. If he says something in the next moment that is the opposite, then that is more true than what was said in the first moment.
It's an alternative fact, and is more true than the basic fact that may have been said earlier. Viewers, listeners and readers should disremember what was said earlier, because Fact Two has more truth than Fact One. Why? Because he said so. Whatever he says at any given moment is true. Some facts are more true than other facts.
Meanwhile, journalists are going bonkers trying to keep up with developments as the current president races toward impeachment. Democrats in Congress are demanding that the process start. Even some Republicans, denizens of the president's own political party, are acknowledging that it's time to collect all the facts.
Also, the deputy attorney general has named a special counsel to lead an investigation into charges that Russia may have tried to manipulate last November's presidential election.
This will likely include probing allegations that the president call for the FBI to stop investigating his former national security advisor, as well as the "coincidence" that James Comey, who had been the FBI director, was fired after he reportedly refused to pledge his personal loyalty to the president, and to drop the investigation. The next day, the president fired the FBI director.
All this information and more was disclosed to the public by journalists.
But all of the disclosures are fake and phony, perpetrated by the unfair media, according to a man whose ignorance of history, geography, law and Constitutional principles has been demonstrated many times during the election campaign and since the inauguration.
His credibility gap is now wider than the Grand Canyon, prompting investigations by Congress and a special counsel to follow up on news reports detailing potentially impeachable offenses.
Even House Speaker Paul Ryan is echoing Sgt. Joe Friday in "Dragnet," the TV series, "Just the facts, Ma'am."
The evidence and the facts are piling up.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Pooling Life Resources
"Am I my brother's keeper?" -- Genesis 4:9
Old age is a pre-existing condition. Pregnancy can be a pre-existing condition.
Either can disqualify a new applicant for a medical insurance policy.
Insurance premiums are calculated on the perceived risk of a person actually needing to use a policy, and this calculation applies whether applying for auto insurance, flood insurance, health insurance or any other type.
It's certainly appropriate for a company to calculate these risks when determining rates for any type of applicant. Most insurance companies are, after all, in business to make a profit. If an applicant fits the profile of someone who is more likely to claim payment when he or she needs medical care, if follows that the cost of a policy will be higher.
This is where government steps in with a program such as Medicare. When a person reaches the age of 65, that person is more likely to become sick than an otherwise healthy teenager.
Old age, then, is a pre-existing condition. To cover the additional risk, it's helpful to have more people in the applicant pool, so the risk can be spread out among many others.
This principle applies whatever an individual's current status.
The concept of insurance began with the maritime shipping industry, when shippers would contribute money to a pool before crew and cargo went to sea. Depending on route and season, whether severe storms or pirates might strike and the shipper loses his investment, the premium (cost) of an insurance would vary. In effect, the risk of losing investment in a cargo would be taken up by an insurance company.
Sound like a gamble? It is. If the ship reaches its destination without incident, the insuror profits. If not, the shipper loses only the amount of the policy cost, rather than the entire value of the cargo.
The same principle applies to any other type of insurance. If a person stays healthy, that person has lost only the amount of the premium paid to the insurance company. Those without health insurance, however, can be faced with enormous, catastrophic expenses for a serious illness. And if that person is not wealthy, or the family doesn't have the resources to pay high medical expenses, the entire family may go bankrupt.
The answer, then, is to widen the risk pool, and have more people contribute to the fund whether they are likely to use it or not.
That is the principle underlying any insurance issue, whether it be for health, shipping, auto accidents, a fire or burglary at a home, or a flood.
You may never use it. But it's comforting to know it's there.
Health care is a privilege, not a right, some say.
But who grants that privilege?
And in answer to the question of what people did before health insurance became available to low-income families, the reply is simply this:
They died a lot.
Old age is a pre-existing condition. Pregnancy can be a pre-existing condition.
Either can disqualify a new applicant for a medical insurance policy.
Insurance premiums are calculated on the perceived risk of a person actually needing to use a policy, and this calculation applies whether applying for auto insurance, flood insurance, health insurance or any other type.
It's certainly appropriate for a company to calculate these risks when determining rates for any type of applicant. Most insurance companies are, after all, in business to make a profit. If an applicant fits the profile of someone who is more likely to claim payment when he or she needs medical care, if follows that the cost of a policy will be higher.
This is where government steps in with a program such as Medicare. When a person reaches the age of 65, that person is more likely to become sick than an otherwise healthy teenager.
Old age, then, is a pre-existing condition. To cover the additional risk, it's helpful to have more people in the applicant pool, so the risk can be spread out among many others.
This principle applies whatever an individual's current status.
The concept of insurance began with the maritime shipping industry, when shippers would contribute money to a pool before crew and cargo went to sea. Depending on route and season, whether severe storms or pirates might strike and the shipper loses his investment, the premium (cost) of an insurance would vary. In effect, the risk of losing investment in a cargo would be taken up by an insurance company.
Sound like a gamble? It is. If the ship reaches its destination without incident, the insuror profits. If not, the shipper loses only the amount of the policy cost, rather than the entire value of the cargo.
The same principle applies to any other type of insurance. If a person stays healthy, that person has lost only the amount of the premium paid to the insurance company. Those without health insurance, however, can be faced with enormous, catastrophic expenses for a serious illness. And if that person is not wealthy, or the family doesn't have the resources to pay high medical expenses, the entire family may go bankrupt.
The answer, then, is to widen the risk pool, and have more people contribute to the fund whether they are likely to use it or not.
That is the principle underlying any insurance issue, whether it be for health, shipping, auto accidents, a fire or burglary at a home, or a flood.
You may never use it. But it's comforting to know it's there.
Health care is a privilege, not a right, some say.
But who grants that privilege?
And in answer to the question of what people did before health insurance became available to low-income families, the reply is simply this:
They died a lot.
Family Business
"This isn't personal. It's strictly business." -- Michael Corleone
A competent political leader knows the difference between a personal grudge and the business of the nation.
Would that were the case in America today.
Memo to the president: There are some things you cannot control, and among these are the unalienable rights of the people to disagree with you. That does not necessarily mean disrespect, although many American citizens now harbor that toward you.
It does mean, however, that disagreement is not only a right, but a duty for anyone participating in the democratic process.
The American people deserve better than a president who treats the Oval Office as the headquarters of a family business.
Unfortunately, this president seems to take any disagreement, on any level, from any person or group, as an acutely personal affront, one that warrants a continuing and direct attack on those who disagree with him.
There is an old joke among several ethnic groups that a person may have a special kind of Alzheimer's disease, such that the victim forgets everything but his grudges.
One can only speculate as to the current president's state of mental health, but his seeming lack of interest in or knowledge of history or current events, coupled with his compulsive demand for agreement and need for immediate support bordering on adulation, as well as an attention span that can be measured in milliseconds, all combine to make his suitability to remain in office an important question.
His recent claim, in an interview with The Economist newspaper, that he invented the term "pump priming the economy," brought a shock to any student who ever took a course in Economics 101, as well as those familiar with the teachings of John Maynard Keynes and the term's use by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his efforts to revive the U.S. economy from the Great Depression.
Such a claim, along with many others, shows an ignorance of basic economic and political issues.
His latest foray into braggadocio was in revealing to high Russian officials details of plans by Middle Eastern terrorist groups, as reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Technically, he is able to reveal highly classified information to anyone, at any time. But doing so makes his motives and competence highly questionable. Moreover, such loose talk can mean that any ally who has supplied secret intelligence information in the past may stop.
If the president's goal was to increase his personal prestige with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister, he has surely failed, as the Russian officials would gather the information and then regard the president as a loose-lipped braggart.
Other words also come to mind to describe his actions and behavior, among them these two: stupid and fool.
The American people deserve better.
A competent political leader knows the difference between a personal grudge and the business of the nation.
Would that were the case in America today.
Memo to the president: There are some things you cannot control, and among these are the unalienable rights of the people to disagree with you. That does not necessarily mean disrespect, although many American citizens now harbor that toward you.
It does mean, however, that disagreement is not only a right, but a duty for anyone participating in the democratic process.
The American people deserve better than a president who treats the Oval Office as the headquarters of a family business.
Not since Richard Nixon has there been a president so self-involved with himself, so undisciplined and so unaware of the repercussions of what he says and does, and so wound up in his own self-importance as to endanger the safety of the republic.
News stories have carried many details of the current president's international business dealings and potential conflicts as to put him in danger of impeachment. The evidence is piling up. Meanwhile, his base of supporters is eroding, and elected officials of his own party are increasingly questioning his motives, actions and fitness for office.Unfortunately, this president seems to take any disagreement, on any level, from any person or group, as an acutely personal affront, one that warrants a continuing and direct attack on those who disagree with him.
There is an old joke among several ethnic groups that a person may have a special kind of Alzheimer's disease, such that the victim forgets everything but his grudges.
One can only speculate as to the current president's state of mental health, but his seeming lack of interest in or knowledge of history or current events, coupled with his compulsive demand for agreement and need for immediate support bordering on adulation, as well as an attention span that can be measured in milliseconds, all combine to make his suitability to remain in office an important question.
His recent claim, in an interview with The Economist newspaper, that he invented the term "pump priming the economy," brought a shock to any student who ever took a course in Economics 101, as well as those familiar with the teachings of John Maynard Keynes and the term's use by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his efforts to revive the U.S. economy from the Great Depression.
Such a claim, along with many others, shows an ignorance of basic economic and political issues.
His latest foray into braggadocio was in revealing to high Russian officials details of plans by Middle Eastern terrorist groups, as reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Technically, he is able to reveal highly classified information to anyone, at any time. But doing so makes his motives and competence highly questionable. Moreover, such loose talk can mean that any ally who has supplied secret intelligence information in the past may stop.
If the president's goal was to increase his personal prestige with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister, he has surely failed, as the Russian officials would gather the information and then regard the president as a loose-lipped braggart.
Other words also come to mind to describe his actions and behavior, among them these two: stupid and fool.
The American people deserve better.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Read the Constitution
"If anyone has earned the right to express their views, it's John McCain." -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press," broadcast Sunday 14 May 2017.
Basic values are at risk when we enter an era where human rights must be earned.
Here's a correction to Tillerson's comment: The right of free speech is not one that must be earned. We are all born with that right, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
In case you haven't read it recently, Mr. Tillerson, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
This echoes the Declaration of Independence, which begins with a list of self-evident truths, that all are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights. The right of free speech is unalienable and to the Founders it was self-evident.
John McCain's views may carry more weight because of his military experience as a prisoner of war and as a U.S. senator. But his right to express those views is no stronger than any other person.
A political leader's views surely are of more interest to voters and the general public, but every member of the public has an equal right to express an opposing view.
The opinions and attitudes of a secretary of state, a president, or anyone else in government are important because these views can influence policy and how government officials treat members of the general public.
And therein lies a danger. When government officials claim, suggest or even imply that one person has less right to express an opinion than another person or group of persons, the republic faces a danger reminiscent of what George Orwell wrote in his satire, "Animal Farm," in which one of the characters announces, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
When such an attitude pervades the attitudes of government officials and becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of citizens, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish" such a government.
Sound familiar? That's in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, another document that is recommended reading.
Further, the signers of that document agreed that whenever a government tries to reduce them to subjects of a despot, it is the right and duty of the people to throw off such a government.
To prove their case, the Founders added a list to the Declaration of Independence detailing some of the abuses they faced.
Here are a few examples cited then against the head of state, which are relevant today.
-- Obstruct naturalization of foreigners and refuse to encourage migration. Today, the current president is actively discouraging immigration.
-- Incite domestic insurrection. "Get him out of here," said the president as a candidate. On another occasion, he said, "Maybe he should be roughed up."
-- The Founders charged that the ruler at that time "wants judges dependent on his will alone." Compare that to the current president's attacks on judges who rule against him, and his demand that the director of the FBI declare his loyalty to him, rather than to the Constitution and the law.
When the director refused to declare his personal loyalty but promised honesty instead, the president fired him, in the middle of an FBI probe of possible collusion with a foreign power.
So is this obstruction of justice, a criminal offense? More evidence is needed, and that is just what the FBI is doing, along with congressional committees and independent journalists.
The current president now has the opportunity to name a new FBI director, and the question is whether he will appoint someone who will follow the Constitution and the law, or do what the president tells him to do.
Basic values are at risk when we enter an era where human rights must be earned.
Here's a correction to Tillerson's comment: The right of free speech is not one that must be earned. We are all born with that right, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
In case you haven't read it recently, Mr. Tillerson, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
This echoes the Declaration of Independence, which begins with a list of self-evident truths, that all are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights. The right of free speech is unalienable and to the Founders it was self-evident.
John McCain's views may carry more weight because of his military experience as a prisoner of war and as a U.S. senator. But his right to express those views is no stronger than any other person.
A political leader's views surely are of more interest to voters and the general public, but every member of the public has an equal right to express an opposing view.
The opinions and attitudes of a secretary of state, a president, or anyone else in government are important because these views can influence policy and how government officials treat members of the general public.
And therein lies a danger. When government officials claim, suggest or even imply that one person has less right to express an opinion than another person or group of persons, the republic faces a danger reminiscent of what George Orwell wrote in his satire, "Animal Farm," in which one of the characters announces, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
When such an attitude pervades the attitudes of government officials and becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of citizens, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish" such a government.
Sound familiar? That's in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, another document that is recommended reading.
Further, the signers of that document agreed that whenever a government tries to reduce them to subjects of a despot, it is the right and duty of the people to throw off such a government.
To prove their case, the Founders added a list to the Declaration of Independence detailing some of the abuses they faced.
Here are a few examples cited then against the head of state, which are relevant today.
-- Obstruct naturalization of foreigners and refuse to encourage migration. Today, the current president is actively discouraging immigration.
-- Incite domestic insurrection. "Get him out of here," said the president as a candidate. On another occasion, he said, "Maybe he should be roughed up."
-- The Founders charged that the ruler at that time "wants judges dependent on his will alone." Compare that to the current president's attacks on judges who rule against him, and his demand that the director of the FBI declare his loyalty to him, rather than to the Constitution and the law.
When the director refused to declare his personal loyalty but promised honesty instead, the president fired him, in the middle of an FBI probe of possible collusion with a foreign power.
So is this obstruction of justice, a criminal offense? More evidence is needed, and that is just what the FBI is doing, along with congressional committees and independent journalists.
The current president now has the opportunity to name a new FBI director, and the question is whether he will appoint someone who will follow the Constitution and the law, or do what the president tells him to do.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Threats, Lies and Power Ploys
News reports have been crowded recently with stories about the latest doings and the potential undoing of the current president of the United States.
From the self-contradictory claims and comments of the Twitter in Chief to the countervailing reports of his official media representatives, it's hard to keep up with the various versions of who said what to whom, when and where it was said, as well as what the veracity quotient is of each.
It's revisionist history playing out daily, and sometimes hourly.
So what's a concerned citizen to do?
Some believe everything the political power broker says, and blame the "fake, dishonest media" for reporting what is said, even when today's statement is the reverse of yesterday's. And replays of the video, which was broadcast live originally to the world, fail to persuade the True Believers that the words are not twisted and manufactured.
"Don't consider what comes out of his mouth, look at what's in his heart," said the Truest of True Believers.
Even if reporters were able to see what's in someone's heart, they, as part of the "fake and dishonest media," would not be believed.
Unfortunately, few can know what lurks in the hearts of men. All they can do is report what is said and what can be verified by recording devices. But when the recorded comments, claims and accusations change daily or hourly, the conclusion can only be that the only truth is that such-and-such was said. And when statement of Day One is contradicted by comment of Day Two, and both are ridiculed by accusation of Day Three -- all uttered by the same person -- the only conclusion a rational listener can make is that the Perpetrator in Chief is attempting to manipulate the message for some purpose known only to him.
The real truth, then, is something else, and it remains journalism's task to find it and report it to the public, regardless of any threats, lies or power ploys made by any political leader.
As one former president said of another former president, "If he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd tell a lie just to keep his hand in."
Meanwhile, the current president threatens to cancel daily White House press briefings, and to respond only in writing.
Journalism's responsibility is to ask penetrating, forceful questions to reach beyond unprovable claims and to find truthful information.
There is no such thing as an "alternative fact."
Is there "adversarial journalism"? Absolutely. Democracy depends on it.
From the self-contradictory claims and comments of the Twitter in Chief to the countervailing reports of his official media representatives, it's hard to keep up with the various versions of who said what to whom, when and where it was said, as well as what the veracity quotient is of each.
It's revisionist history playing out daily, and sometimes hourly.
So what's a concerned citizen to do?
Some believe everything the political power broker says, and blame the "fake, dishonest media" for reporting what is said, even when today's statement is the reverse of yesterday's. And replays of the video, which was broadcast live originally to the world, fail to persuade the True Believers that the words are not twisted and manufactured.
"Don't consider what comes out of his mouth, look at what's in his heart," said the Truest of True Believers.
Even if reporters were able to see what's in someone's heart, they, as part of the "fake and dishonest media," would not be believed.
Unfortunately, few can know what lurks in the hearts of men. All they can do is report what is said and what can be verified by recording devices. But when the recorded comments, claims and accusations change daily or hourly, the conclusion can only be that the only truth is that such-and-such was said. And when statement of Day One is contradicted by comment of Day Two, and both are ridiculed by accusation of Day Three -- all uttered by the same person -- the only conclusion a rational listener can make is that the Perpetrator in Chief is attempting to manipulate the message for some purpose known only to him.
The real truth, then, is something else, and it remains journalism's task to find it and report it to the public, regardless of any threats, lies or power ploys made by any political leader.
As one former president said of another former president, "If he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd tell a lie just to keep his hand in."
Meanwhile, the current president threatens to cancel daily White House press briefings, and to respond only in writing.
Journalism's responsibility is to ask penetrating, forceful questions to reach beyond unprovable claims and to find truthful information.
There is no such thing as an "alternative fact."
Is there "adversarial journalism"? Absolutely. Democracy depends on it.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Free Stooges
Among the names being bruited about as possible choices for the job of FBI director are Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, and Chris Christie, soon to be an ex-governor of New Jersey.
Both are early and avid supporters of the current president. Giuliani is out of a job in government, and Christie soon will be. But while both are lawyers and former prosecutors, neither has experience in the purely investigative work of an agency like the FBI.
The major quality they do have is intense loyalty to Donald Trump. That may be enough for the president, but that won't fit with the traditions of FBI agents.
Larry, Moe and Curly were good for laughs in their Hollywood heyday, but picking a stooge for one of the most important positions in American law enforcement is no laughing matter.
Both are early and avid supporters of the current president. Giuliani is out of a job in government, and Christie soon will be. But while both are lawyers and former prosecutors, neither has experience in the purely investigative work of an agency like the FBI.
The major quality they do have is intense loyalty to Donald Trump. That may be enough for the president, but that won't fit with the traditions of FBI agents.
Larry, Moe and Curly were good for laughs in their Hollywood heyday, but picking a stooge for one of the most important positions in American law enforcement is no laughing matter.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Trumpgate
The odds of Donald Trump making it through a full term fell sharply after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, according to those who tally such things. It's now even money that he won't last.
The British betting site Predictit said the chances of Trump staying in office until 2019 plummeted to 69 percent, according to a report in the London Express news site.
And Ladbrokes, another major oddsmaker, noted that soon after the inauguration, those who felt he would leave office before serving a full term outnumbered those who bet he would last by five-to-one.
The Express quoted a Ladbrokes spokeswoman as saying the firm "didn't even offer odds on (former President Barack) Obama being impeached or resigning, which speaks volumes about the current president."
And the odds of Trump being impeached soared as a result of the Comey firing, several betting sites said. He now has a 60 percent chance of being impeached during his first term, said a spokesman for Paddy Power, a betting site in Ireland.
Another British betting operation said the odds that Trump will be out by the end of this year went from nine-to-one to three-to-one. And the odds of him leaving before the end of his first term are now even money, according to several published reports.
So whether Trump resigns under pressure or is impeached, convicted and removed from office remains a major question, as does the timetable for either scenario.
However, odds are he won't last a full term.
The British betting site Predictit said the chances of Trump staying in office until 2019 plummeted to 69 percent, according to a report in the London Express news site.
And Ladbrokes, another major oddsmaker, noted that soon after the inauguration, those who felt he would leave office before serving a full term outnumbered those who bet he would last by five-to-one.
The Express quoted a Ladbrokes spokeswoman as saying the firm "didn't even offer odds on (former President Barack) Obama being impeached or resigning, which speaks volumes about the current president."
And the odds of Trump being impeached soared as a result of the Comey firing, several betting sites said. He now has a 60 percent chance of being impeached during his first term, said a spokesman for Paddy Power, a betting site in Ireland.
Another British betting operation said the odds that Trump will be out by the end of this year went from nine-to-one to three-to-one. And the odds of him leaving before the end of his first term are now even money, according to several published reports.
So whether Trump resigns under pressure or is impeached, convicted and removed from office remains a major question, as does the timetable for either scenario.
However, odds are he won't last a full term.
"You're Fired!"
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
The president has so far fired three high profile law enforcement officials who had been leading investigations to his activities before and since his move to the White House. In each case, he had been profuse in his praise of each, but resorted to pretext to cover up any real motive for dismissing them.
The latest victim of the president's wrath is FBI Director James Comey. He joins Sally Yates, who had been acting attorney general, and Preet Bharara, who had been the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Each had been leading investigations into the president's activities. And all had been highly praised by the president, until word of the investigations became public. Once the news broke, they were promptly fired.
One can only speculate as to the real motives. The reality, however, is that the president now has shown a habit of firing those who lead investigations into his business or political activities and the ethics of how they interact, as well as possible criminal or constitutional issues.
Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway insisted that comments made during the presidential election campaign were no longer relevant, and should be forgotten. This prompted CNN interviewer Anderson Cooper to ask whether this referred to "a fictional character who longer exists." Conway's response was to say such a question was "unkind."
But whether campaign talk should or can be ignored is an issue already decided by several federal judges. What was said in public cannot simply be forgotten. Or as lawyers are fond of saying, "You can't unring the bell."
And thanks to the wonders of modern technology, speeches, comments and actions are preserved in computer memory banks, and the video can be rerun many, many times, to compare what is said today with what was said in the past.
The president has so far fired three high profile law enforcement officials who had been leading investigations to his activities before and since his move to the White House. In each case, he had been profuse in his praise of each, but resorted to pretext to cover up any real motive for dismissing them.
The latest victim of the president's wrath is FBI Director James Comey. He joins Sally Yates, who had been acting attorney general, and Preet Bharara, who had been the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Each had been leading investigations into the president's activities. And all had been highly praised by the president, until word of the investigations became public. Once the news broke, they were promptly fired.
One can only speculate as to the real motives. The reality, however, is that the president now has shown a habit of firing those who lead investigations into his business or political activities and the ethics of how they interact, as well as possible criminal or constitutional issues.
Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway insisted that comments made during the presidential election campaign were no longer relevant, and should be forgotten. This prompted CNN interviewer Anderson Cooper to ask whether this referred to "a fictional character who longer exists." Conway's response was to say such a question was "unkind."
But whether campaign talk should or can be ignored is an issue already decided by several federal judges. What was said in public cannot simply be forgotten. Or as lawyers are fond of saying, "You can't unring the bell."
And thanks to the wonders of modern technology, speeches, comments and actions are preserved in computer memory banks, and the video can be rerun many, many times, to compare what is said today with what was said in the past.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Deportees and Labor Shortages
"All they will call you will be deportees." -- Woody Guthrie
As the nation reaches full employment -- it's now 4.4 percent, the lowest in years -- American business owners are becoming aware of a major problem with deporting many thousands of newcomers who arrive illegally and take jobs that many folk don't want and will not take.
Soon enough, money talks, and when a labor shortage starts eating into profit margins and productivity, the America firsters change their attitude.
First on the list was the agriculture industry, where farmers could not find workers to harvest the crops. But the wealthy elite didn't care, because these pickers were low-wage and unskilled, and the higher price of grapes, oranges and other crops did not have as much of an effect on their lifestyles.
Then the labor shortage spread to other industries, but still company owners and local workers held to their opinions that the newcomers were all violent criminals anyway, and the jobs should go to their "real American" children. But many of the youngsters didn't want those jobs, and felt they were somehow entitled to something better.
Then came the colleges and universities, who are losing tuition income from foreign visiting students who pay at higher rates but decide not to come to the U.S. in fear of violence.
The latest example is the horse industry. Trainers at major racetracks such as Churchill Downs say it's increasingly difficult to find staff. Like many others who have questionable legal status, these newcomers fear deportation, and refuse to leave the grounds even to buy groceries.
In Kentucky alone, the horse industry is worth an estimated $4 billion.
Perhaps those who bring their horses to compete in the Kentucky Derby will send their college student offspring to help muck out the stables when track management runs out of workers.
As the nation reaches full employment -- it's now 4.4 percent, the lowest in years -- American business owners are becoming aware of a major problem with deporting many thousands of newcomers who arrive illegally and take jobs that many folk don't want and will not take.
Soon enough, money talks, and when a labor shortage starts eating into profit margins and productivity, the America firsters change their attitude.
First on the list was the agriculture industry, where farmers could not find workers to harvest the crops. But the wealthy elite didn't care, because these pickers were low-wage and unskilled, and the higher price of grapes, oranges and other crops did not have as much of an effect on their lifestyles.
Then the labor shortage spread to other industries, but still company owners and local workers held to their opinions that the newcomers were all violent criminals anyway, and the jobs should go to their "real American" children. But many of the youngsters didn't want those jobs, and felt they were somehow entitled to something better.
Then came the colleges and universities, who are losing tuition income from foreign visiting students who pay at higher rates but decide not to come to the U.S. in fear of violence.
The latest example is the horse industry. Trainers at major racetracks such as Churchill Downs say it's increasingly difficult to find staff. Like many others who have questionable legal status, these newcomers fear deportation, and refuse to leave the grounds even to buy groceries.
In Kentucky alone, the horse industry is worth an estimated $4 billion.
Perhaps those who bring their horses to compete in the Kentucky Derby will send their college student offspring to help muck out the stables when track management runs out of workers.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Scoring
So the GOP got to first base with their new plan for health care, after striking out on their first two attempts.
Next, the Senate will be up to taking a pitch from Team Trump, but meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office will come up with a cost-benefit scoring analysis as the folks back home complain to their elected representatives about the many negative aspects, as explained to them by journalists who have actually read the bill, unlike House Republicans who voted to approve it before reading it or waiting for the CBO to analyze and estimate what it would cost.
So far, the people most likely to score benefits from the plan are the wealthy, who don't need much help in getting basic health care.
They do, however, always feel they need help in keeping their money away from tax collectors. And major newspapers are detailing the effects of the plan with detailed reporting of their own, which the folks back home will surely read as they challenge congressional representatives at town hall meetings.
Assuming the politicians have the gumption to show up.
Next, the Senate will be up to taking a pitch from Team Trump, but meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office will come up with a cost-benefit scoring analysis as the folks back home complain to their elected representatives about the many negative aspects, as explained to them by journalists who have actually read the bill, unlike House Republicans who voted to approve it before reading it or waiting for the CBO to analyze and estimate what it would cost.
So far, the people most likely to score benefits from the plan are the wealthy, who don't need much help in getting basic health care.
They do, however, always feel they need help in keeping their money away from tax collectors. And major newspapers are detailing the effects of the plan with detailed reporting of their own, which the folks back home will surely read as they challenge congressional representatives at town hall meetings.
Assuming the politicians have the gumption to show up.
Dog Daze
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president in 130 years not to have a dog. It's not known whether he even likes dogs.
The question for many folks is this: What kind of a person is he who doesn't like dogs, and what does that say about his personality and how he deals with other people?
News outlets around the world have pondered this issue since before the inauguration of the real estate titan last January, even as a potential deal to adopt a Goldendoodle named Patton fell through when the owner of the pup decided to keep him.
Whether the dog's military namesake was a deciding factor is yet another question.
Early on, Barack Obama promised he would get a dog for his daughters, and soon Bo, a Portuguese water dog, joined the White House family, followed by Sunny, another of the same breed.
Bill Clinton had both a cat and a dog, a Labrador retriever named Buddy.
Jimmy Carter enjoyed the company of a collie, an Afghan hound and a Siamese cat. Lyndon Johnson was photographed with his Beagle.
John F. Kennedy housed a zoo's worth of pets at the White House, including a Welsh terrier, a canary, parakeets, a rabbit, and hamsters.
Dwight D. Eisenhower favored a Weimaraner named Heidi.
And Franklin D. Roosevelt had his favorite terrier, named Fala.
Harry S. Truman reportedly did not like dogs, but he accepted several puppies as gifts even though he did not keep them.
The last president never to have a dog in the White House was William McKinley. Nevertheless, he did have roosters, a parrot and several kittens, according to the Presidential Pet Museum, so he could not have been been all bad.
As to whether the current occupant of the White House will yield and accept the loyalty and devotion that pet dogs are famous for giving their people, only the future reveal that.
But this question hovers above all the others: Why would a man who values total loyalty above all else not have a dog?
The question for many folks is this: What kind of a person is he who doesn't like dogs, and what does that say about his personality and how he deals with other people?
News outlets around the world have pondered this issue since before the inauguration of the real estate titan last January, even as a potential deal to adopt a Goldendoodle named Patton fell through when the owner of the pup decided to keep him.
Whether the dog's military namesake was a deciding factor is yet another question.
Early on, Barack Obama promised he would get a dog for his daughters, and soon Bo, a Portuguese water dog, joined the White House family, followed by Sunny, another of the same breed.
Bill Clinton had both a cat and a dog, a Labrador retriever named Buddy.
Jimmy Carter enjoyed the company of a collie, an Afghan hound and a Siamese cat. Lyndon Johnson was photographed with his Beagle.
John F. Kennedy housed a zoo's worth of pets at the White House, including a Welsh terrier, a canary, parakeets, a rabbit, and hamsters.
Dwight D. Eisenhower favored a Weimaraner named Heidi.
And Franklin D. Roosevelt had his favorite terrier, named Fala.
Harry S. Truman reportedly did not like dogs, but he accepted several puppies as gifts even though he did not keep them.
The last president never to have a dog in the White House was William McKinley. Nevertheless, he did have roosters, a parrot and several kittens, according to the Presidential Pet Museum, so he could not have been been all bad.
As to whether the current occupant of the White House will yield and accept the loyalty and devotion that pet dogs are famous for giving their people, only the future reveal that.
But this question hovers above all the others: Why would a man who values total loyalty above all else not have a dog?
Friday, May 5, 2017
Jobs
The unemployment rate in the U.S. dipped to 4.4 percent in April, its lowest in ten years, according the government data, as 211,000 new jobs were added to American payrolls.
Meanwhile, the average for hourly pay grew by 0.3 percent, and personal income and disposable personal income also rose.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that jobless rates were lower in March in 336 of 388 metro areas throughout the U.S., higher in 38 and unchanged in just 14.
Separately, the Commerce Department said the international trade deficit narrowed in March. Also, the Federal Reserve Board said the nationwide labor market "has continued to strengthen, even as economic activity slowed." First quarter growth was 0.7 percent, down from the fourth quarter rate of 2.1 percent.
All things considered, things are looking OK, and companies are hiring.
Meanwhile, the average for hourly pay grew by 0.3 percent, and personal income and disposable personal income also rose.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that jobless rates were lower in March in 336 of 388 metro areas throughout the U.S., higher in 38 and unchanged in just 14.
Separately, the Commerce Department said the international trade deficit narrowed in March. Also, the Federal Reserve Board said the nationwide labor market "has continued to strengthen, even as economic activity slowed." First quarter growth was 0.7 percent, down from the fourth quarter rate of 2.1 percent.
All things considered, things are looking OK, and companies are hiring.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Trumpcare (Not)
Health care is too important to be left entirely to profit-oriented private business.
Republicans in the House of Representatives celebrated their "victory" today as they passed, with a single vote to spare, the effort to turn the health insurance market back to the insurance companies and the various states that may or may not want to regulate how they do business.
Now the bill goes to the Senate, where it will face fierce opposition and many amendments before it returns to the House for a second approval and then to the White House for the president's signature.
Meanwhile, the crux of all the changes means the states can opt out of many of the federal provisions in the name of state's rights and the free market philosophy that says customers will have the "privilege" of choosing from the many variations of health care options that may or may not be offered by the dozens of companies that may or may not decide to offer policies to the young and healthy (yes, because they don't need it), to the old and sick (no, because that will interfere with corporate profits), or to those with pre-existing conditions (no, because that, too, will cut into corporate profits), and besides, people can go to hospital emergency rooms when they're really sick and get treatment there.
The problem with that is that many millions of Americans who now have insurance through the Affordable Care Act (emphasis on "affordable") are likely to be priced out of the market and trust to luck that they will not become sick.
Once they do, of course, and a crisis arises, these folks go to emergency rooms, where hospitals are required by law to treat them whether they can afford to pay or not.
There are two problems with that situation: First, the cost of treating them is absorbed by the hospital, which then passes on the costs in the form of higher prices to others who have insurance or are wealthy enough to pay directly.
Second, the cost of emergency, crisis treatment is far higher than routine maintenance and preventive care that affordable health insurance can provide.
Either way, the additional cost is passed on to the general public. Meanwhile, however, the commercial insurance companies emphasize their corporate need for profit and recompense to shareholders.
As things stand now, the United States is the only major nation that does not provide reasonable health care for all its citizens, regardless of ability to pay. Moreover, America spends more money per person on health care but has lower outcomes than other advanced nations.
It matters not. Corporate profits, it seems, are more important than a healthy citizenry
Republicans in the House of Representatives celebrated their "victory" today as they passed, with a single vote to spare, the effort to turn the health insurance market back to the insurance companies and the various states that may or may not want to regulate how they do business.
Now the bill goes to the Senate, where it will face fierce opposition and many amendments before it returns to the House for a second approval and then to the White House for the president's signature.
Meanwhile, the crux of all the changes means the states can opt out of many of the federal provisions in the name of state's rights and the free market philosophy that says customers will have the "privilege" of choosing from the many variations of health care options that may or may not be offered by the dozens of companies that may or may not decide to offer policies to the young and healthy (yes, because they don't need it), to the old and sick (no, because that will interfere with corporate profits), or to those with pre-existing conditions (no, because that, too, will cut into corporate profits), and besides, people can go to hospital emergency rooms when they're really sick and get treatment there.
The problem with that is that many millions of Americans who now have insurance through the Affordable Care Act (emphasis on "affordable") are likely to be priced out of the market and trust to luck that they will not become sick.
Once they do, of course, and a crisis arises, these folks go to emergency rooms, where hospitals are required by law to treat them whether they can afford to pay or not.
There are two problems with that situation: First, the cost of treating them is absorbed by the hospital, which then passes on the costs in the form of higher prices to others who have insurance or are wealthy enough to pay directly.
Second, the cost of emergency, crisis treatment is far higher than routine maintenance and preventive care that affordable health insurance can provide.
Either way, the additional cost is passed on to the general public. Meanwhile, however, the commercial insurance companies emphasize their corporate need for profit and recompense to shareholders.
As things stand now, the United States is the only major nation that does not provide reasonable health care for all its citizens, regardless of ability to pay. Moreover, America spends more money per person on health care but has lower outcomes than other advanced nations.
It matters not. Corporate profits, it seems, are more important than a healthy citizenry
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Control Freak
Rudeness is no cover for ignorance.
Simply put, ignorance means not knowing. In and of itself, this is not dangerous, but acting on that lack of knowledge, especially in government and international relations, can be extremely dangerous.
Rudeness, however, can be proof of an ignorant man's need, born of insecurity, to control every conversation, situation or project that he encounters.
Truly intelligent people are aware of what they don't know, and are willing to listen to others with knowledge or expertise of a subject. In doing this, they absorb many sides of an issue and balance all aspects to make an informed decision.
The biggest dangers, therefore, lie in uninformed decisions, or in snap decisions made on incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. That is, ignorance.
Add arrogance to the mix of ignorance and rudeness and you form an image of an extremely dangerous political leader.
Simply put, ignorance means not knowing. In and of itself, this is not dangerous, but acting on that lack of knowledge, especially in government and international relations, can be extremely dangerous.
Rudeness, however, can be proof of an ignorant man's need, born of insecurity, to control every conversation, situation or project that he encounters.
Truly intelligent people are aware of what they don't know, and are willing to listen to others with knowledge or expertise of a subject. In doing this, they absorb many sides of an issue and balance all aspects to make an informed decision.
The biggest dangers, therefore, lie in uninformed decisions, or in snap decisions made on incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. That is, ignorance.
Add arrogance to the mix of ignorance and rudeness and you form an image of an extremely dangerous political leader.
Finger Snaps
Corporate moguls, politicians and military leaders are accustomed to getting their own way, snapping an order and expecting it to be carried out immediately and without argument or discussion of any kind.
Some members of this breed are so used to this practice that they forget that journalists are not in their employ, to be treated as recalcitrant underlings who instantly leap when told to jump.
The most pushy of this breed often resort to threats, blatantly warning others, "I will be so angry" if a certain task is not done quickly and to his satisfaction. And he will call out publicly by name those who do not conform to his wishes.
This name blame tactic may work in the private sector, where the designated leader can say, "You're fired," and there goes the career of someone who does not conform.
Sound familiar?
The lesson here for anyone in government is that insulting journalists just for doing their jobs has little effect, except that it is more likely to increase the negative coverage. Reporters learn early that the more someone protests "negative coverage," the more likely the story is right on.
In addition, calling out legislators from your own party and warning them that you will be angry if they don't do as they're told is simply not a good idea. In its way, this tactic has greater consequences than insulting journalists, because a government or political leader needs the support of others in his party more than he or she needs the support of journalists.
In fact, warning others to behave themselves and do as they're told or face an angry leader is the kind of tactic parents use to bring naughty children into line.
Sound familiar? The current president of the United States used just such language over the weekend against two congressional representatives from Pennsylvania, warning them, "I will be so angry" if his proposed health care bill is not passed quickly.
Members of Congress must keep in mind that they answer to the electorate, not to whoever happens to be president.
At least, that's what the Constitution was designed to arrange.
Some members of this breed are so used to this practice that they forget that journalists are not in their employ, to be treated as recalcitrant underlings who instantly leap when told to jump.
The most pushy of this breed often resort to threats, blatantly warning others, "I will be so angry" if a certain task is not done quickly and to his satisfaction. And he will call out publicly by name those who do not conform to his wishes.
This name blame tactic may work in the private sector, where the designated leader can say, "You're fired," and there goes the career of someone who does not conform.
Sound familiar?
The lesson here for anyone in government is that insulting journalists just for doing their jobs has little effect, except that it is more likely to increase the negative coverage. Reporters learn early that the more someone protests "negative coverage," the more likely the story is right on.
In addition, calling out legislators from your own party and warning them that you will be angry if they don't do as they're told is simply not a good idea. In its way, this tactic has greater consequences than insulting journalists, because a government or political leader needs the support of others in his party more than he or she needs the support of journalists.
In fact, warning others to behave themselves and do as they're told or face an angry leader is the kind of tactic parents use to bring naughty children into line.
Sound familiar? The current president of the United States used just such language over the weekend against two congressional representatives from Pennsylvania, warning them, "I will be so angry" if his proposed health care bill is not passed quickly.
Members of Congress must keep in mind that they answer to the electorate, not to whoever happens to be president.
At least, that's what the Constitution was designed to arrange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)