That Damned Electoral College

        As we approach Presidential election time once again, we Are beginning to hear the reawakening of the “abolish the electoral college” supporters’ mantra. While there are issues with the concept, my intent here is not to support the College as a concept, but rather to explain why it is as it is and why the real issue isn’t the Constitution but state legislatures

        The Electoral College idea actually derives from several concepts. Initially, in the days when many individuals may well have travelled no more than 10 or 12 miles from their home, in any given year, there was some sentiment that most would never see (or being marginally literate in many areas) read the positions or opinions of a candidate for the Presidency. This led persons like Alexander Hamilton and, at the time James Madison to originate the concept with the stated purpose of insuring that only "fit" persons (as in not Kanye West or Pat Paulson) were elected by insuring that responsible, and presumably informed  persons were chosen as electors.  The choosing of the electors, oddly enough, is not specified. Right up front this means if not mandated in the Constitution it is relegated to the authority of the states. In essence, this means that parties choose stalwart supporters to go to the state capitol and cast their electoral votes. It's a sort of pat on the head perk for being a loyal partisan.

        It is of critical relevance that, at the time of the framing and the writing by Jay, Hamilton and Madison of the federalist papers, there were certainly regional interests but no true parties and even 8 years later, George Washington in his farewell address advised American citizens to view themselves as a cohesive unit and avoid political parties and issued a special warning to be wary of attachments and entanglements with other nations. So, for the first two presidential elections, there were candidates but not really parties. This was to change (no shit!)

        In justifying the use of the Electoral College (in Federalist 68, March 12, 1788) Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with why the college is used, as opposed to direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the college, should have a part of the process, but that those who actually choose should be, (and Hamilton absolutely viewed himself thus):  "Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."   In other words, the elite among us. Remember, there was really no party system in place and the sense was far different than what it has become.

        In what has evolved into a two party system, with the odds stacked against third or even fourth party efforts, the states have led the way, especially after the Civil War,  by making it extremely difficult to get on the ballot if you aren't  Republican or Democrat. It hasn't always been so, and the election of 1824 demonstrates the flaws in the system.

        In that year there were actually four candidates for the presidency: Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. And (wait for it) all four actually called themselves Democratic - Republicans, which today sounds a bit strange in its own right. Then, as now, a majority (more than 50%) of the electoral votes was needed to win the White House. At 151,271 popular votes, Jackson still only had 41% of the electoral vote, Adams with 113,122 popular had 31% electoral, Clay - with 47,531 popular, had 13% electoral, and Crawford with 40,856 popular had 10% electoral.

         In such a case, the Constitution requires that the winner be decided by the House of Representatives with each state getting one vote, casting ballots until a majority of states for one candidate is reached. In other words, if this happened again (which it never will) there would be 50 votes which would determine the presidency, but each vote would represent the majority vote of each individual state’s House Members. Surprisingly, the Senate would watch from the sidelines.  This is critical, and a reason why there will likely continue being an Electoral college for some time. This is the one and only time in the House where tiny Rhode Island, Delaware, or Hawaii or sparsely settled states like Wyoming or Idaho carry as much political clout as New York, California, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. any attempt to change this would require a Constitutional Amendment, which (in the usual manner) starts in the Senate with a 2/3 approval vote. It is unlikely that senators would vote to take from the smaller states the "equal power" their House delegations have under that set of conditions.

          In 1824, per the Twelfth Amendment, only the top three vote getters entered this new and very different election. Clay, actually third highest vote getter, was speaker of the House and as such was left out, but he publicly (and strenuously) declared his support for J.Q.Adams. On the first ballot, the results were Adams 13, Jackson 7, Crawford 4. Every single New England state and New York supported Adams, who won the Presidency with the votes of 54% of the states. It was later alleged that Clay was offered the secretary of State gig by Adams, which he accepted, in exchange for his support in the House. Jacksonians screamed that it was a "corrupt bargain." In any case it was also a situation where Jackson had 11% more of the popular vote than the eventual winner! This was the first such instance, there would be three more before 2016, the fifth time it has happened.

        I find it interesting that after the 1824 election, all of the remaining 4 minority popular vote winners (Hayes, Harrison, Bush43 and Trump) were Republicans.  In each case, as in the current one, critics decried the Electoral College and the process.  Since 1864, 6 third party candidates have actually received more than 20 electoral votes, with Roosevelt's Progressives getting 88 in 1912. In all those cases, however, the winner still had a majority of the electoral vote, thus avoiding an 1824 replay.

        What could be done without an Amendment? It's actually a simple fix, since the apportioning of votes to electors is delineated by each state, and the Constitution is mute on the issue. 48 of 50 states at present are "all or nothing" as far as electoral votes. These states have chosen to do this because they are playing the odds that they are likely/historically to support one party a majority of the time. In these states, if a candidate wins the popular election by 3 votes, they still get all the electoral votes! Florida in 2000 was a perfect example. Republicans were delighted that all 29 Florida electors were Republican even though the state was so close that …well, you know, it’s still painful. Only Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting electoral votes.

         Although it is possible for an Elector to cast his or her vote for someone other than for the popular vote winner in their state, this is quite rare in modern times. As a result, electoral votes for a state tend to be "all or nothing".  Maine and Nebraska, as mentioned, take a slightly different approach. Both states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote. This, if adopted by each state would much more closely approximate a popular vote without touching the Constitution. In fact, most Americans don't realize how little election law is really federal! Other than the Electoral College, the remaining Federal laws related to voting are the specification for the day of election (first Tuesday after the first Monday of every other even numbered year), and the  26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18. That's it!

        In summary, partisan politics at the state level and the nation’s evolution into a two-party system have made the Electoral College far less effective in reflecting the majority will of the people (at times) than it could be. Don’t blame the Constitution for the malfeasance of state governments in distorting the operation of the Electoral College.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences

       Dr. Stella Immanuel is a self-described "wealth transfer coach", and has authored several books as part of her Occupying Force series. She has been an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump, and long-time critic of "unmarried couples living together, homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy" and so-called "homosexual terrorism".

       Sadly, for the gullible, Immanuel's medical claims are sometimes combined with her spiritual beliefs. She has said that many gynecological illnesses are the result of having sex dreams with succubi and incubi (male and female demons) and receiving "demon sperm". She has said that endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages, and sexually transmitted infections are caused by these spirit husbands and spirit wives. According to Immanuel, the causes of cysts and endometriosis are individuals having sex in their dreams with demons and witches. She said in a 2015 sermon that space alien DNA is used in medical treatments and that reptilians and aliens run the government. She also stated in 2015 that Illuminati are using witches to destroy the world through abortion, gay marriage, children's toys and media such as Harry Potter, Pokémon, Wizards of Waverly Place and Hannah Montana. In another 2015 sermon, she said scientists are developing vaccines to stop people from being religious. In layman’s terms this bag of misinformation and superstitious drivel is as loony as a shit house mouse and about as rational as Michele Bachmann on meth.

        Tragically, some who deny Global Warming in the face of real-world data and contiguous evidence (chains of related events), will believe this off the wall Cameroonian nutter. Real scientists, in multiple studies, have debunked her claims related to any real effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine as a “cure” for Covid 19. Of course, Trump, himself the poster child for the reality challenged, is a believer. As Ron White famously stated: “You can’t fix stupid.”   

        There is another, far more Karmic, pattern being seen as relates to severity and in fact susceptibility to Covid 19 and that is a Mayo clinic and Harvard study which seems to  verify earlier studies from Europe which go a long way to explaining the seemingly much lower susceptibility to and severity of the infection in some younger persons. The study, not yet peer reviewed, as it was just completed, is entitled  "Exploratory analysis of immunization records highlights decreased
SARS-CoV-2 rates in individuals with recent non-COVID-19 vaccinations" and can be found in its entirety here:

 https://www.medrxiv.org/…/10…/2020.07.27.20161976v1.full.pdf

         It revolves around other anti-viral anti-bodies present in these populations because of ….wait for it…..MMR vaccinations and several other related vaccines (Hep A & B, Flu, Pneumonia and several others). Areas where MMR is a routine vaccination from around the world report lower incidence of infection and less severe courses of disease in young persons into early adulthood. If you want the technical explanation, here it is as brief as it can be and still be understandable:  

         “The ability of live attenuated vaccines to train the immune system against non-targeted pathogens (ed: in this case Covid-19) by training the host system against a variety of infections is a key feature of this approach. Evidence of its efficacy is growing. Traditional vaccines seek to activate the adaptive immune system by causing the T- and B-lymphocytes to recognize specific pathogen. Then when a similar pathogen is encountered later, the adaptive immune system will remember that pathogen and launch a defense.

       The innate immune system works differently. It recognizes a pathogen through a system of pattern recognition receptors that quickly activate the host defense. The innate immune system does not, however, possess immunologic memory. During the past several years, clinical trials have shown that the innate immune cells – monocytes, macrophages and NK cells, for example – can confer protection from certain infections independently of the lymphocytes. Notably, this system provides nonspecific protection against infections unrelated to the target pathogen of the particular vaccine.

        As an example, MMR vaccinations are given to all U.S. Navy recruits; researchers pointed out. The markedly milder symptoms seen in the 955 sailors on the USS Roosevelt who tested positive for COVID-19 (with only one hospitalization), are a real-world illustration of this effect. (This also is in light of a crew of 3,532 in close contact during the viral latency period with only 27% becoming symptomatic!)

       Additional data noted a correlation between people in geographical locations who routinely receive the MMR vaccine and reduced COVID-19 death rates. Research shows that countries with recent vaccination campaigns against measles-rubella have fewer COVID-19 deaths.

      There is a further correlation between those born after about 1971, when MMR vaccination became widespread, and low incidence of COVID-19. Hong Kong, for example, had 1,128 cases as of June 19, and 1,074 who had recovered from COVID-19. Only four people died. That’s a fatality rate of 0.4% in a population of 7.5 million. To date the US death rate is almost 10 times as high as Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places in the world, at over 17,000 per square mile. The reason for such a low incidence rate may be the free MMR vaccination program instituted in 2019, for all adult healthcare workers, airport staff and foreign domestic helpers, and the 1997 mass immunization campaign for people from infancy to age 19.  

       I said at the outset that this was Karmic. By that I meant that those anti-vaxxers who, citing completely discredited hysteria regarding vaccines, refuse to give their offspring protection against common childhood diseases which can be fatal, may also have placed them at much greater risk of Covid 19.

       California mandates full vaccination panels prior to entering childcare or school. Of almost 40,000 cases in the age 0 to 17 range, there have been zero deaths. The age 18-34 group (residual MMR effects ?) has by far the lowest percentage of deaths of  the rest. The next age group - 35 to 49 - has over four times as many deaths. This is consistent with the general belief among immunologists that the effects of MMR last, in general, about 20 years. Very few adults ever get a “booster.”

Now for my editorial opinion vice data: (well ok, some data)

        As previously stated, California mandates MMR. Period. No personal or religious exemptions allowed for public school children. Its neighbor to the north, Oregon allows exemption from any and all vaccines, simply on an “I don’t wanna” basis. No reason or certificate required. Unsurprisingly, Oregon is a hotbed of the anti-vaxx movement and sentiment.  Rates of unvaccinated children for “philosophical” reasons in Oregon have been on the rise since 2015. In fact, as ludicrous as it seems to the rational mind, considering measles can, and did at one time, kill children, 7.5 percent of children in kindergarten in Oregon are currently not vaccinated with one or more shots because of a nonmedical exemption. Consequently, Oregon has had three measles outbreaks in recent years. So, would we expect Oregon to also have a higher rate of Covid infection among younger groups if all the above is realistic? The data below is from the Lagrande (Oregon) Observer:

       “The number of COVID-19 cases in the state of Oregon doubled during the month of June, and the population of Oregonians accounting for the majority of the increase in COVID-19 cases in the last month was younger, an analysis of the data from Oregon Health Authority finds.

Ages 0-9 saw a 391% increase (65 on May 31, 254 new cases in June), and 10-19 jumped 258% (179 on May 31, 462 new cases in June).”     

        For comparison, California (mandatory vax) had just 1.9% in the 1 to 5 age range (less than half or Oregon’s 4% figure) and 7% in the 5-17 age group (30% lower than Oregon). Oregon has a far lower population density, yet still manages to have more sick kids on a percentage basis. Why? I think we know why. The sole relevant variable is MMR vaccination.

Beware the law of unintended consequences!

When Morons Attack

       In the category of just how venal, racist and partisan can a person be, Senator Tom Cotton (R AR) is attempting to ban the 1619 project materials from all school curricula. If Cotton’s legislation passes, school districts that embrace the curriculum would no longer qualify for federal professional development funds, money that is intended to improve teacher quality.

         He’d have had to haul my ass to jail then. We railed at Soviet era rewriting of history which was rife with actual falsehoods. The 1619 project is none of that, being based largely, but not exclusively on primary source information. Cotton says the “founding fathers,” however he classes them, believed slavery to be a “necessary evil” to the nation’s development. That may have been true for some, but not by all by a long shot.  The first Congress had to deal with an attempt by Pennsylvania Quakers to abolish slavery by law. By the time of the Civil War the rest of Europe had already outlawed slavery.

       Much earlier,  1777, Vermont, not yet a state, had not only abolished slavery, but granted voting rights  to former slaves. PA. followed in 1780, Mass. in 1783. The remaining New England states–New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island–adopted emancipation schemes modeled on Pennsylvania’s statute in the mid-1780s, and the United States Congress abolished slavery in any future states north of the Ohio River in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

        Knowing Cotton as the dunce he is, he would probably be surprised that all this took place before the Constitution was ratified in 1789! It is certainly true that all the Virginians of property who could be classified as “founders” were born into a slave holding culture but even before the Northwest Territories Act (“Northwest Ordinance”) passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1787 banned slavery north of the Ohio river, Thomas Jefferson had tried in vain to impose such a ban. In truth, of the 39 “framers” of the Constitution, more than half had voted “yea” on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Jefferson, a Virginian and slave owner had also argued FOR Virginia to emancipate slaves.

For details on how slavery in America shaped and affected almost all political debate prior to 1862,  go here: 

https://bubblehead1026.blogspot.com/2020/06/what-you-dont-know.html

       It is true that the 1619 project, as a whole, draws conclusions which are interpretations of complex circumstances, some of which have been questioned by legitimate scholars, and, are themselves a starting point for further learning. I’d like to think anyone bright enough to graduate Harvard Law (Cotton) would understand that comparing, contrasting, questioning, and drawing conclusions are the crux of historiography, but then, our Governor, Bozo DeSantis, Covid denier #1, is also a Harvard Law Grad. Both men suffer from acute Trump recto-cranial inversions (their heads, his ass) and might benefit from reading Dr. Mary Trump’s book.

          In short, we show grave disrespect to anyone of any age when we attempt when to tell them or legislate what they may read or hear, that they are only allowed some information,  and must limit what conclusions they have to draw from what they are shown. 

       Unlike Tom Cotton, who deals principally with members of Congress, I have dealt with hundreds of inquisitive, literate individuals who were quite capable of evaluating, comparing, and contrasting multiple sources and deciding for themselves how they feel about it. These remarkable people, 11^th graders when I had the privilege of their presence, would sneer at Cotton’s attempt to tell them what to believe. Keep the morons out of the education business, starting with Betsy DeVos and working down the list.

Dodd Frank vs. Trump and Mnuchin

Why we need Dodd-Frank (with teeth!)

        I have written at some length on several occasions, focusing on Trump’s efforts to gut or even eliminate Dodd-Frank. It is hardly surprising, considering the amount of debt carried by the Trump Organization. It is noteworthy that Trump’s two wastrel sons have sold off assets to the tune of around $60 million (so far) to pay down some of that debt, which is in the neighborhood of $650 million. The debt included $211 million from the state-owned Bank of China, which would have matured in the middle of what could be Trump’s second term.(God forbid) You remember China - The country which Trump criticized daily over the past ten years with various allegations of financial malfeasance?

        This is reflective of the pattern of Trump’s adult life except that, unlike 25-30 years ago, there is no daddy to illegally launder money and bail him out from one bad decision after another. Trump’s real aversion to Dodd-Frank is more clearly understood in the light of this 2017 quote:  “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Trump said during a White House meeting with business leaders, many of them from the same Wall Street financial institutions that had behaved so abhorrently a decade ago. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow it because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”

       First, at the time Trump was ranting about a “credit shortage,” banks were  lending under the provisions of Dodd-Frank to good credit risks, which Trump truly hasn’t been in the light of five bankruptcies. The other lie, of course is the characterization of any human as a “good friend” of Donald Trump. As we have seen over the past years, “friendship” (or marriage) with Trump lasts only as it is beneficial to Trump or if the other party can subordinate their pride to the chance of advancement by kissing the Trumpian derriere. (It's French and means "ass")  

       In truth (a concept with which Donald Trump has only a vague and passing familiarity) and contrary to claims of tight credit in 2017, there are also hard data to refute the statement. At the height of the housing bubble, (2008) largely spurred by market manipulations and false valuation which Dodd-Frank sought to halt, total non-financial sector outstanding debt stood at about $10.4 trillion. (yes, nine zeros). By 2016 and the Obama recovery under Dodd-Frank restrictions, that number had increased to about $14 trillion, so yes, Trump lied. (really?)  Banks were, and are, lending to responsible borrowers.  Market Watch in February, 2017 put it this way: “Business debt is growing about 6.5% per year now, about half the 13% growth rate seen at the height of the insanity in late 2007 and about twice as fast as the economy is growing. Businesses are generally borrowing as much as they want. In the aggregate, corporations can finance 100% of their funding needs for capital investments from their cash flow and their retained earnings.”

        So, what does Dodd-Frank do that Trump and his investment banker cronies dislike?

In brief, Dodd-Frank Act is a comprehensive and complex bill which covers 16 major areas of reform. In simplest terms, the law places strict regulations on lenders and banks in an effort to protect consumers and prevent another all-out economic recession.

       In contrast to what took place during the 2008 financial crisis, American taxpayers will no longer be responsible for bailing out Too-Big-To-Fail banks nearing bankruptcy. Remember TARP? Tarp, signed into law by Bush 43 committed up to $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out large corporations, primarily commercial banks and insurers, which Bush characterized as “too big to fail.”  In reality the amount loaned amounted to a bit less.  Although early estimates for the total cost of the bailout to the government were as much as $700 billion, TARP recovered funds totaling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6%. This is largely because The Obama administration with, one may add, bi-partisan support, while allocating $350 billion or so, channeled it where needed, not as an attempt to make industrial policy by supporting some industries while stiffing others.  

        Under Dodd-Frank, however, Government and taxpayer bailouts have more or less been discontinued. Bank creditors and shareholders are now responsible for maintaining their institution’s solvency. This is of minimal concern to “normal”  banks, however, but Trump’s “friends” (and creditors!!) the large  commercial banks, are now responsible for prudent management of their own debt and the safety of their investments because there won’t be funds from Uncle Sugar next time.

       Added to the “No bailouts” language is a provision that the “Volcker rule” remains applicable. The Volcker Rule forbids banks from making certain investments with their own accounts. For example, banks can’t invest, own or sponsor any proprietary trading operations or hedge funds for their own profit, with some few exceptions.  Such operations caused much of the great recession bubble collapse.  Lehman Brothers actually went bankrupt, and their operations so shady that they were refused protection in 2008 on the recommendation of Bush 43 SecTreasury Paulsen. Bear-Stearns, with a decades long history of “sketchy” operations was bought by Morgan/Chase with a government bailout loan.

        Anyone who has read “The Big Short” has more than a passing knowledge of the sharks in the mortgage loan business who were the ground floor of shady mortgages, later bundled as  investment grade instruments until the bottom fell out. I have known several responsible lenders who acknowledge the ground floor complicity of their less principled colleagues. Without taking several pages, just grasp that a mortgage broker, once securing the buyer’s obligation, resells the loan to some larger financial institution, ergo makes commission without any accountability should the loan default. Again, read the book for examples of their shenanigans.  

       A peripheral casualty of Trump's efforts to reduce or eliminate the scope of Dodd-Frank would be The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Established under Dodd-Frank, CFPB was aimed at the preventing predatory mortgage lending (reflecting the widespread sentiment that the subprime mortgage market was the underlying cause of the 2008 catastrophe as outlined in the previous paragraph) and make it easier for consumers to understand the terms of a mortgage before agreeing to them. It deters mortgage brokers from earning higher commissions for closing loans with higher fees and/or higher interest rates and requires that mortgage originators not steer potential borrowers to the loan that will result in the highest payment for the originator.

        The CFPB also governs other types of consumer lending, including credit and debit cards, and addresses consumer complaints. It requires lenders, excluding automobile lenders, to disclose information in a form that is easy for consumers to read and understand; an example is the simplified terms now on credit card applications.

       Lest anyone actually be so naïve as to believe that large commercial banks are, like Caesar’s wife, above reproach these days, here’s why we need Dodd Frank:

       Consider, as an example of the genre,   Goldman Sachs, with a decades long history of marginal honesty. Controversies have, for most of the 20th and 21 centuries (so far) nipped at the heels of  this  multinational investment bank. The bank’s activities have generated controversy and litigation around the world. The firm’s involvement in global finance and politics has been questionable for some time. In a widely publicized story in Rolling Stone, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi characterized Goldman Sachs as a "great vampire squid" sucking money instead of blood, allegedly engineering "every major market manipulation since the Great Depression."

        Wow! So now that we’re watching them, they’ve probably cleaned up their act, huh? I’ll bet Trump’s Treasury Secretary really has his eye on them. Not necessarily. Surprise!! Steve Mnuchin worked for Goldman Sachs for 17 years prior to entering government “service.” He left with around $58 million in stock and severance pay. Following that, he ran several hedge funds which invested in at least two Trump projects. I think we’re still being serviced much as the bull “services” the cow.

        Mnuchin’s former employer has been the subject of recent criminal investigations into its role in the theft of at least $2.7 billion from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB, sovereign wealth fund. After “guilty as hell” was plastered across the firm, the bank confirmed a $3.9 billion deal with the Government of Malaysia to “resolve” all the criminal and regulatory proceedings in Malaysia relating to (1MDB). Goldman/Sachs’ defense was basically “One our rogue guys in East Asia did it,” a skeptic might opine that $3.9 billion says otherwise.

        One may recall that paying to settle without admission of obvious guilt, is consistent with a number of Trump exploits as well, from housing discrimination and Trump “University, to the Trump Foundation, porn stars and the list continues.

        Do we need Dodd-Frank? Yes, now more than ever.

MFA

       Over the next several months we’re going to see a renewal of the health care debate, It will undoubtedly be waged by folks who genuinely care that too many of us don’t have either insurance or reasonable access to preventive medicine, on one hand, and those who have it, but want to make the rest of us believe it’s too expensive to provide for all Americans on the other. The second group are liars. I have written elsewhere several times about the real math related to cost. For simplicity’s sake let’s agree to call it (a universal health care system) Medicare For All (MFA).    

        To briefly recap the cost issue associated with MFA:

       Those who oppose it use two grossly incorrect assumptions: The first is the claim that MFA would cost $10,000 per individual annually. This lie is based on the flawed assertion that the figure of $10 grand is accurate. It is not, and it ain't real close!.  

A reasonable person examining this data set will note that about 1/8 of the population spends more than the $10,000 figure and the rest spend far less. The other and very persuasive factor here is that the figures above include the current abusive drug pricing which, apparently, only we in the USA are “privileged” to pay. Calculating the weighted averages, the actual national average spending per patient in the USA is $4299. Putting it in other words, the $10 grand figure is a lie.

The second lie is even more egregious. 

Building on the $10 K figure (remember, it’s really about $4300) the assertion is made that all of it would have to be paid with additional taxes. At first blush, there is the temptation to nod sagely as if that statement were not blatantly false, which it is. I know, I know, why?

        Well Jethro, this discounts or ignores all the health care spending already existing at present. Average (2017, latest data available, It’s surely a bit higher in 2019) US Employer contribution (per person, the expenditure is more for family policies) is $5655, the Employee contribution for single coverage (family coverage is usually MUCH higher) is $1241, and the employee also pays an average of $1537 in Medicare deductions from salary.

        The crux of all this is that, for the average US worker, there is already a total of $8433 annually, never seen in a pay envelope except as a deduction, which goes to healthcare spending! Using the best estimate of the number of employees under those circumstances (155,761,000 in 2018) that means that over $1.3 trillion is already going to health care spending under current circumstances. Just as a math exercise, that means that right now (and these numbers exclude some high earners in business not considered industrial) Between employee contribution and employee payroll deductions there is already about $4,000 for every individual in the country sent to either private insurers or Medicare annually.  The anti MFA folks discount all this to scare the rest of us.

       Let me put it another way. Just assuming annual employer and employee health care contributions remained as they are, we are only about $300 dollars per person short of the real annual cost of universal MFA. Add to that some considerations I’m going to list shortly and it’s not even that.

The second part of this requires some historical perspective:

        Once upon a time health care was a cash (or in more urban areas, charity, at times) affair and frequently, being poor equated to dying an early death from what, today, is easily treatable (diabetes , heart disease, etc.). The first health care coverage which was similar to the modern model was Texan in origin and provided primarily, coverage for hospitalization only. This was, to a great extent, because as technology (anesthesia, X rays, etc.,) blossomed, so did the costs of procuring and using them. The originator of recognizable group health care insurance was a Baptist charity hospital, but within a decade, the model had spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept was now known as Blue Cross Plans. 

       The goal, as incepted, was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals — and the charitable religious groups that funded them — afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit!

        Even so, prior to World War II, (when most treatments were still relatively unsophisticated and cheap) relatively few Americans had health insurance. The invention of effective ventilators enabled a widespread expansion of surgery suites and intensive care units as wartime “in extremis” medical procedures had broken new ground in corrective and lifesaving surgical procedures. 

       Massachusetts General Hospital started the first anesthesia department in the United States in 1936. The first intensive care unit equipped with ventilators opened during a polio epidemic in Copenhagen in the early 1940s. That meant more people could be saved, including soldiers injured during the war and victims of polio outbreaks. Five dollars a day and a 21-day maximum stay (a Blue Cross original provision) were not remotely close to adequate. Insurance with a capital I was increasingly needed.

         A private industry selling direct to customers could have filled the need — as it has for auto and life insurance. But a quirk of WWII history and well-intentioned federal policy helped firm up the concept of employer-based health insurance in the United States. When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and immediately after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage this trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees’ health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications.

        Essentially all employer provided policies covered only major medical, meaning they paid for extensive care but not routine doctor visits and the like. The original purpose of health insurance was to ease financial disasters brought about by a serious illness, such as loss of home or job, not to make health care cheap. Our current concepts of what insurance should do have grown. 

       Between 1940 and 1955, the number of Americans with health insurance skyrocketed from 10 percent to over 60 percent! (pre-Medicare/Medicaid) Blue Cross/Blue Shield became seen as a force for good across America. Non-profit, according to their charter, the “Blues” accepted everyone who sought to sign up; all members were charged the same rates, no matter how old or how sick. Blue Cross Blue Shield had become one of the most trusted brands in postwar America. It was not to last.

        At a time when medicine had more of value to offer, tens of millions of people were interested in gaining access and expected their employers to provide insurance so they could do so. For-profit insurance companies moved in, unhindered by the Blues’ stated charitable (non-profit) mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom, at least statistically, they could make a buck. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they did with life insurance. Many simply refused people with certain preexisting conditions. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Think deductibles, copays, drug plans, etc.

       Watching these “new guys” pass them by woke up the “Blues,” still seen (by brand name at least) as the good guys in health insurance. Many of the Blues seized the business opportunity, with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California particularly aggressive, encircling and absorbing fellow Blues in a dozen other states. Renamed WellPoint, it is now the biggest of the for-profit companies descended from the original nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; today it is the second-largest insurer in the United States. Most of its plans still operate under the name Anthem BlueCross BlueShield, but “non-profit” is merely a distant memory. I know this has been long, but it’s important to know how this paradigm shift occurred, even if no one else was in the room where it happened. (sorry, Lin Manuel!)

        Like essentially every entity in the health care industry, especially Big Pharma, insurers spend a lot of money on lobbying and supporting business friendly candidates, attempting to ensure that their cash cow doesn’t go dry by government fiat. Today, when any elected official orates against MFA it’s a safe bet that he’s using data provided by the for- profit insurance industry. Of course, all high executive salaries, lobbying expenses and media ads are expensive, and premiums reflect it.

        A statistic which drives the Health Insurance industry is the “medical loss ratio.”  In 1993 (just 37 years ago), before the Blues ditched client welfare in favor of profit, insurers spent 95 cents out of every dollar of premiums on medical care, which is the afore mentioned “medical loss ratio.” To increase profits, all insurers, regardless of their tax status, have been spending less on care in recent years and more on activities like marketing, lobbying, administration and the paying out of dividends. The average medical loss ratio is now closer to 80 percent.

        Some of the Blues were spending far less than that even in 2010.   The medical loss ratio at the Texas Blues, where the whole concept of health insurance started, was just 64.4(!!) percent in 2010. Understand that number.  35.5% of all premium income for what was once a non-profit, now goes to other costs not related to client welfare (you know – profit!)  

       Now for some comparisons: As stated above the average administrative cost across the Health care industry (profit plus actual cost of managing the program as stated above) runs at about 30%, Medicare’s admin cost is about 2%. The figure used when scare mongering re: “MFA” is the private admin cost figure.

       Now for apples to apples. Consider the cost of providing health care as a percentage of Gross National Product (GNP)

    

The figure at the top of 16.9% is the portion of the US GNP, which is spent on healthcare, ergo not available for other things like debt reduction. The UK, however, spends just 9.8%, and even Switzerland which mandates private insurance for every citizen spends just 12.2%. I know, so what does this mean to me?

       In simple math, it means that if the US had a health care system which ran as efficiently as the UK National Health service, in 2019 we would have saved $1.5 trillion dollars. To state it in simplest terms, we would have had an almost $500 billion surplus instead of a $1.06 trillion deficit! For comparison that’s about 84% of the Defense budget for the year, and $200 more than current Medicare/Medicaid spending.

        And before you even think of telling me a UK “horror story”, look at OECD or Kaiser health care consumer satisfaction surveys. (Yeah, we’re close to last there, too.) And in many US cities wait times for elective procedures are as long or longer than in the UK. And don’t even think about specialists. Data from other nations show that universal coverage does not necessarily result in substantially longer wait times. In fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which the United States' peer nations have shorter wait times. The longest waits were in Boston, where patients wait an average of 72 days to see a dermatologist and 66 days to see a family doctor!

        Does anyone in government have the guts to incept universal health care?  I doubt it, or if so, over a long time, but just negotiating drug costs for Medicare/Medicaid would save, conservatively speaking, about $125 billion.  Again, just for comparison, simply negotiating drug costs for Medicare/Medicaid to levels comparable to what private plans now pay, would save slightly more than the current Veteran’s Affairs and Federal Welfare spending budgets combined!   

And I do believe that’s all I have to say about that!

The Family Where it Happened

       Those of you who haven’t read Dr. Mary Trump’s Book but have seen such commentary as her two uncles have uttered in bashing the runaway best seller and its author should take what they say with the same grain of salt as every other lie which comes daily, or more like hourly from the President and his mouthpieces. 

        Of course, it’s embarrassing to be identified as the progeny of a sociopath builder, cum slum lord, (Fred Sr,) who enabled two of his sons and emotionally abused one while being emotionally unavailable in every way except inculcating the concept of money at any cost. Both Robert and Donald were willing to take all that was offered, while Fred Jr. (Dr Trump’s father) opted for getting away from the toxic environment and eventually was forced to return because he was unable to function without booze. Donald, especially, was the golden child because he was a braggart and social climber, which his far less polished father admired. As Donald’s social notoriety increased, even as his businesses increasingly lost money, Fred Sr. saw the name Trump, in the media, gloried in it, and pumped questionably documented millions into them. 

        Dr. Trump doesn’t, in any sense, sugar coat her father’s foibles and failures, however, she also pulls no punches in limning her paternal grandparents as an aloof, asocial and cash driven father and distant, emotionally unavailable, mother. The result, MaryAnne, Robert and Donald grew up defensive to a fault and, to a great extent, mirroring their parents.  

        It’s not my intent to be a spoiler, but know that, as Fred Sr. was in the throes of Alzheimer’s, the three named above attempted to get him to sign papers essentially diverting full control of the business to Donald and Robert while effectively disinheriting Fred Junior’s branch of the family. Fred Sr, in a rare lucid moment, refused. Along the way, Fred Sr, had enabled Donald to an extent which beggers belief, siphoning huge amounts of cash in what amounted to money laundering, to help keep Donald’s increasingly failing businesses afloat. Trump who bragged that he had started his “empire” with a “small loan” from his father was in fact the beneficiary of a stream of tax fraud income in the area of $430 million. The Trump Organization holdings, “formally” valued at Fred Sr.’s death at about $30 million were actually worth closer to a billion. Most of the difference was money on which tax should have been paid but wasn’t.

         The documentation of the financial shenanigans involved   is what Mary Trump, having discovered it, eventually gave to the New York Times. Meanwhile Donald’s older sister MaryAnne, the beneficiary of a fortune and political pull was made a federal judge, not on merit, but on family ties. She has remained relatively silent.

        Mary Trump has not revealed anything startling, relative to her uncle's erratic behavior, which we haven’t seen played out over the past 3 ½ years of this seemingly eternal national nightmare. She has simply filled in the detailed background of the incredibly dysfunctional set of abusive familial relationships which explain it. She has done it (and I take her at her  word) because like so many of us, she is appalled by his continuing incompetence and childish behavior as what should be the leader of the free world but has become the butt of jokes from Germany to New Zealand and all points in between. She seems genuinely afraid, as are many of us, of what he might do if granted a second term.

       And finally, while it would be difficult to find two observers with more divergent political points of view or for whom I have a wider divergence of regard than Dr. Mary Trump and John Bolton, one fact rings true. Their evaluations of the actions and attitudes of Donald Trump are consistent. Bolton describes them as an on-scene observer and Mary Trump explains them in the context of the familial zoo which created and enabled them.

       I am reminded of a line in “All the President’s Men” where “Deep Throat” (the superb Hal Holbrook in the movie) is chastising Bob Woodward in a clandestine parking garage meet and says “You’ve made people feel sorry for Haldeman. I didn’t think that was possible.” By the end of this book one might even feel sorry for Donald Trump….but no, not today, not ever. The stakes are far too high.

The Little Lies We Tell Ourselves and the Bigger Ones We're Told.

Lies and platitudes: Those we tell ourselves and those foist upon us.  

First a mom platitude: “There’s always room for Jello.”

No there’s not. Not “always.” Jello is just like any other liquid and it’s just as filling. The people who make Jello would like you to believe it is a magic, mass-less, flavor bomb, but it ain’t so. If it was, how would the carrots and cabbage stay in suspension? And, since we’re on the subject, I also find it difficult to imagine just how hungry the originator must have been when he or she looked at orange Jello, looked at carrots and said, “Hey! They’re both orange; I’ll bet these would be good together.” By this logic a lime Jello and green tomato mix should be really yummy!

        “MacDonald’s is only about fast food.”

Technically, I suppose this is true, but conceptually, McDonalds is also symbolic of bland, mundane, ordinary “for the masses” retailing, much like most of what spews forth from one of the many Trump press hacks.   I mean, the shakes will barely even melt, rather deteriorating into a sort of slimy, non-dairy, glop. Carried into other areas of American life, there are numerous other non-food concepts which are “McDonalds.”

       People magazine, The National Inquirer, and in fact, every single type of checkout line reading material is/are literary McDonalds. Most on-line quizzes touting your “genius” status if you can answer more than half of the 5th grade geography questions? McDonalds. Twitter, Pinterest, Snapchat? All McDonald’s, seeming to feed, but leaving you somehow unsatisfied. Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of (your town here), Big Brother, Survivor? All vicarious mental McDonald’s meals for those with no life. Worst of all? Fox News - claiming to be journalism while sandwiching massive slabs of loathsome, unhealthy, pro-Trump op-ed between very thin slices of actual factual reportage. On second thought, strike that last. Even McDonald’s food is more digestible that Faux News .

        “Good things come to those who wait.”

        Sometimes, possibly, but what this platitude slides right past is really the crux of its intent. If what you are waiting for is the result of planning, nurture and forethought, then many times gratification ensues. If, however, the waiting you engage in is, for example, the failure to address a medical issue, whether due to inability to pay, or “If I don’t see a doctor, then I won’t have to think about it” fatalism, then it is unlikely that your wait will result in anything good.

        In like manner, if the wait involves taking no responsibility to educate yourself, or learn salable skills, then, like many in those towns in Kentucky and West Virginia filled with “out of work” miners who refuse to retrain, the only thing good to come is continued reliance on public assistance. The alternate version of this platitude is “The Lord will provide,” also a sop to those, too lazy, superstitious or stupid to act in their own behalf.

      “Trump’s “Wall” would stop most “illegal” immigration since Mexicans are the vast majority of undocumented immigrants.”

      This canard remains a favorite of  Trump sycophants who cling to a rapidly decreasing list of things promised which may still be “on the table.” This faint hope dims their view of the multitude of truly detestable actions and verbal attacks levied in all directions by this most non-presidential of presidents. Without a listing of the mountain of data available, there are several singularly inarguable considerations which apply.

1)The states with the largest percentage increases in influx of undocumented aliens as of 2016 were : Louisiana, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Last time I looked, none of these abuts the northern Mexican border.

2) A significant portion of the current numbers of undocumented aliens entering come by air. It had better be a really, really, tall wall!

3) In the absence of any wall, the Obama administration did far more than any previous administration to reduce “illegal” immigration across the Mexican border. I only mention this because Trump derides Obama at every turn, discarding fact along the way.

4) When all immigrants are considered, several things jump out. First, again as of 2016, and prior to Covid 19,  India and China were the top sources of “legal” immigration, with Mexico now third. Additionally, more of these immigrants (30% more!) than native born Americans hold college degrees.

5) Not "wall" specific, but indicative of the monumental ignorance of the man, Of the 1.4 million African immigrants who are 25 and older, 41% have a bachelor's degree, compared with 30% of all immigrants of the same age range. (One recalls the "shithole" countries label placed on African nations in general.) Of the 19,000 U.S. immigrants from Norway — a country Trump told lawmakers is a "good" source of immigrants — fewer (38%) have college educations.

And finally, placing the economy in the short term ahead of public welfare and lying about it.  There is far too much data to repeat here, but the spectacle of an ignoramus President refuting science and recommending quack cures should be burned into the subconscious of every asshole who sees wearing a mask as some sort of plot to steal their soul instead of simply common sense public health policy.  Our governor shares this shame as well. As of today, If Florida was a nation, we would have the fifth highest number of Covid 19 cases worldwide!

OK, now I’m bummed. Time for bed to sleep it off and start over in the am.

Tax and Spend Republicans??

       This first part was an earlier response to a friend who sent me an article several months ago from the Orlando Sentinel regarding the increase in county millage rate.  As usual, the young woman who wrote it was ignorant in many areas, including economics, where she, like the current President, just doesn’t get it. After the earlier part I have written an addendum, based on my amazement that many of my liberal Democrat brethren also seem not to “get” the economics involved.

       "Interesting article but, as usual, based on partial information and fudged data. There is no doubt that the 2020 Sumter county mil rate will increase by about 20%. It needs be specified that the figure is year to year. Nowhere in this biased piece of op-ed does it mention the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. The Sentinel has been anti-Villages from day one for reasons I have yet to fathom.  The Villages isn’t in Orange county, so it really isn’t their problem in the first place.

        It is undeniable that The Villages has had major impact on Sumter County and until this year, no one has complained because it has also meant job creation and employment in many service industry sectors. 

        It is also undeniable that Sumter County has focused a significant level of “going the extra mile” on the Villages area from libraries to county service centers to the best damned driver’s license renewal experience ever in the world. This in spite of the fact that Villages is unique among Sumter population centers in paying local taxes, not to the county but to a CDD, in the form of amenities fees which controls the spending to local interests.  One can argue “water use”, etc. but there is no evidence to support any such negative impact. No one, however, in the Villages really has a gripe, since much of the expansion of law enforcement and public safety directly affects us, as do many, if not most, of the road construction and repair expenditures.

  

       A significant issue is that many folks look at the immediate and eschew the change over time. This precisely the same phenomenon as those who bitch continually about the price of gas, while in truth, adjusted for inflation, even at $2.50 per gallon, it’s cheaper than it was in 1955. One more example: a 2005 Ford Escape (entry level) cost $19,425 in 2020 the entry level Escape costs $25,980. That’s 33% more. Who’s complaining?

        In 2008 the Sumter county millage rate was 5.89, but that was down from a 2005 rate of 7.8! (that, even unadjusted for inflation is 15% HIGHER than the recently adopted 6.7 % for 2020. Understand, that, from 2005 to 2020 even without adjustment for inflation, the millage rate is lower. 

       Had the Sumter County Commissioners decided in 2008 to simply index the millage rate to the CPI, the new rate would be 7.26 (.5 higher).  Adding adjustment for the CPI increase over time means in real dollars that the effect of the new increase is more like 16% lower than 12 years earlier, since the inflation rate over the period 2005 to 2020 (projected) is 23.4%.

In simpler terms. Let’s assume a house valued at 400k. For simplicity’s sake and because it’s been ages since I took statistics, let’s assume what is unknowable, which is a uniform appreciation of 2% annually (remember this period includes “the bubble” collapse). What I will do is take the historical mil rates at several points between 2005 and the proposed 2020 and average them. That gives an average rate 2005 to 2019 of 6.25 millage, but wait, taking just the 2008 rate and adjusting for inflation, which would have raised no eyebrows, or shouldn’t have, in any case, yields an adjusted rate, even if only inflation was considered, of 7.2, which is .5 higher than the new rate.

So? So it takes a broader view than some obviously have, to understand that while the new rate is a 25% jump, which seems high, it really reflects years of lower taxes, since infrastructure (roads) were new and required little maintenance or as is being done currently, resurfacing and pothole repair on county roads.

       One can argue Villages expansion is excessive, but that’s a relative opinion. When roads were new and what existed was sufficient, millage rates were still sometimes high, but over the past 8 years have decreased, unlike the cost of just about everything else we pay for. In that, Sumter County was unique, and gave taxpayers a break because they could. People in Bunnell might have a real reason to complain, because they (with some justification) see the new rates which affect them as well, as being due to Villages expansion. They will bitch about this while they are driving to their jobs working new construction in Fenney, or to their Mike Scott plumbing job in the Villages, etc., etc.

       If, in 2005, Sumter had simply said, “We won’t increase millage rates for the next 15 years”, church bells would have rung out in celebration, and the 2020 millage rate would still be, even unadjusted for CPI increase, 7.8%!  In fact, they reduced rates. Name one other facet of economic life which decreased in cost over the last 8 years. Can’t? Me neither. Still, being economic dunces, many will bitch about paying the new rate and ignore the significant savings of the last 15 years."

  Addendum: 7/17/2020   

I note with some bewilderment (in light of the real numbers in the piece above) the efforts of some to remove the current county commissioners based, apparently only on the recent tax increase. The rub here is that much of the tax increase was occasioned by escalating infrastructure needs of Villages expansion south of CR 44. Many are so short sighted that they can’t seem to see the new paving on Buena Vista, or the other road work funded by tax dollars. Meanwhile Orange County taxpayers are dealing with potholes and paying an effective 18% property tax.

        And here’s the other thing the Villages should just keep shtum (shut up) about. As an unincorporated “town” the CDD residents don’t pay local taxes on top of county taxes.  

      Yeah, that’s correct; residents of Bushnell have the “privilege” of paying another 3.8% on top of the relatively low county appraisal. I’m a liberal Democrat. I’m also fiscally literate. This apparently is not universally true among Democrats. Adjusted for inflation, let me repeat, the current millage rate for Villagers is 16% less than it was 12 years ago. Is anything else you buy, (other than Chinese TV sets) cheaper now ?   I thought not.

        And, finally, I recently read a “Talk of the Villages” post implying that increased revenues will go “into the pockets” of the commissioners. Only if they embezzle it. Salaries are determined by a 2017 act of the Florida legislature and for county commissioners are “slotted” into levels based on the population of the constituency served. In other words, a Dade or Duval county commissioner makes a lot more than a Sumter commissioner, but neither can “vote themselves a pay raise.”   Sumter County gets good service and the Villages get exceptional customer service and road work. For a decade, as the CPI increased, taxes went down. The sudden spate in growth (Fenney, Chitty Chatty, etc.), all involves new or improved county roads. This boom has created short term debt, which part of the raise in millage rate is aimed at retiring. Much of that expansion is in Sumter County.  Simple, really, when you really think instead of just react. That’s more like the other guys.