Health Care Part II

Health care part II 

The claim: “The NHS (UK National Health Service) costs half as much as the US health system, and cares for the whole population.”

Reality Check verdict: If you look at every penny spent on health by anyone in the country, then the UK spends about half as much, per capita, on health as the US does. But if you compare the amount spent on the NHS with the amount spent by the US government on public healthcare, the difference is smaller.

First thing to remember: If it does it at even ¾ the cost of the US it’s better by a lot!

President Trump has caused a stir by tweeting (what else?) his criticisms of the UK's universal healthcare, describing it as a system that is "going broke and not working". NHS England head, Simon Stevens responded that "Healthcare for everybody delivered at half the cost of the US healthcare system is something that people in this country are deeply and rightly committed to".

In the UK, healthcare is universal, while in the States there are 28 million people who are not covered by public or private insurance.

Second consideration: The US uninsured rate is rising again, and states who refused to expand Medicaid are leading the field. Florida’s uninsured population, alone, has risen to almost 3 million. Overall, the total may be as high as 44 million uninsured. This increase is unusual in what Trump ballyhoos as a “great and wonderful economy,” and is especially troubling in the face of very low unemployment. This is not a “failure of the ACA” as some Republicans have ballyhooed, but a direct result of their efforts to weaken it.

Let’s take an objective look. 

Does the NHS really cost half as much per capita as the US system?

Looking at all healthcare spending, including treatment funded privately by individuals, the US spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare in 2016, compared with 9.7% in the UK, so the above statement is in the “half as much” ballpark by that metric.



In dollars per capita, that's $3722 on healthcare for every person in the UK and $9408 per person in the US. So, as a proportion of the value of the goods and services produced by all sectors of the economy the UK spends a bit more than half what the US spends, and in spending per capita it's a bit less than half. If you read part I of this essay, then you noted that my per capita numbers, based on valid average per person sending data are significantly smaller. A good portion of that is insurance profit and the fact that, from providers to hospitals to drug costs, the US system is based on profit, while the UK system is based on break even. Add to this, the fact that prescription drug costs in the US account for almost 20% of all healthcare spending, then look at the hugely inflated drug costs routinely incurred in hospital stays. By contrast, drug costs account for about 14% of NHS spending. One reason for this is the well-known discrepancy between US drug costs and the rest of the world. More on that later.

The difficulty is, when it comes to comparing healthcare in different countries, you're never exactly comparing “like for like.”

Almost all health systems are a mixture of public and private - it's the ratio that varies. In the UK, the public health system can be accessed by all permanent residents, is mostly free at the point of use and is almost entirely paid for through taxation. Americans are far more likely to rely on private (read “for profit”) insurance to fund their healthcare since accessing public healthcare is dependent on your income. The profit involved is one reason Americans spend more.

Unlike one  common misconception, Many European countries, meanwhile, have a social insurance system where insurance contributions are mandatory. This doesn't fall under general taxation but is not dissimilar from paying National Insurance in the UK (or Medicare in the US) and means everyone can access healthcare.

But even if we examine only public funds spent on health, the US government's spending on healthcare still outstrips UK government spending, both in terms of the proportion of its GDP (the way we normally measure the size of a country's economy) and in terms of how much it spends per person. Almost half of US health spending still (and read this as “already”) comes from public money including general taxation - although we’re the only country of the G7 to pay publicly for less than 50% of all healthcare that's provided. Read that as “pay more get less!!”

I have a friend who, not so long ago, when we were “discussing” UK single payer health care, ask, “Then why does everyone still pay for private insurance?” This again was a question born out of sincere ignorance flavored by far-right propaganda. The answer is several fold: First, only about one in ten UK health care consumers pay for private insurance. That's pretty damned far from everyone!

UK private insurance: In 2015, an estimated 10.5 percent of the U.K. population had private voluntary health insurance, with 3.94 million policies held at the beginning of 2015. A family of four in good health with employer-sponsored coverage and earning $100,000 per year spends about 12% of their income on health care. (this of course is as compares to the same US family spending ….(wait for it!!) “The total costs for a typical family of four insured by the most common health plan offered by employers will average $28,166 this year, according to the annual Milliman Medical Index.”

According to UK insurer’s source, a typical family premium – covering two adults in their 40s and two children under 10 – can vary from $900 to around $2300 USD annually for a family of four. 

Compare that to the US average coverage cost of private insurance listed above. UK “private" health care insurance is priced far more like a “supplement” than a primary carrier. It is also important to note that UK private insurance does not cover all conditions. Chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and some incurable cancers will often be excluded from a policy. And yes, private insurance may get one that “new” hip a bit sooner that the average 4 month NHS wait (varies widely from place to place). Of course, I in the US with top shelf health care insurance (Medicare Advantage and Tricare) will have waited 3 months plus when I get mine. However, for emergency services there is no US/UK difference. Period. Oh, one correction, the NHS guarantees shorter ER waits than many experience at The Villages Regional Hospital

Pre-Medicare costs: I mention this because some of the most vociferous critics of single payer (because of what they’ve been told, vice the reality) seem stunned when reminded that they are already on Socialized medicine with Medicare, Some will immediately retort, “Oh hell no, I’m on Medicare Advantage. “Boy do I have news for you later.

As mentioned in part I when discussing “average per capita costs,” average premiums and deductibles nationwide for un-subsidized shoppers (read this as “those without employer provided plans”) for individual coverage averaged $440 per month while premiums for family plans averaged $1,168 per month ($14,000 plus, annually family of four; $5280 annually per individual. However, in the 54-65 age range, individual plan costs are in the $790 (monthly) or $9480 annually out of pocket with no subsidy (employee contribution, etc.) by 2018, the family insurance cost was closer to $20,000 and will continue to escalate. Remember this is Insurance only, and excludes deductibles, drug and provider co-pays, etc. the actual nationwide estimated cost for a family of four, as I stated earlier is in the $28,000 range, yep, more than 25% of income for the “average family.” Not to piss on your shoes, or anything, but the real (as of 2016) “average US family of four income" was $59,039, so jack that percentage up to as much as 50%. Hurts, don’t it?

And now: So, what about “Medicare for all?”

As I developed with data in Part I, although “experts”, most of whom set out to discourage single payer systems, cite figures like $10,000 per person to fund single payer “Medicare for all,” actual statistical analysis, broken down by age group, shows that only one population sector – age 65 + actually costs that much, with the average annual healthcare cost per person, adjusted for portion of the population as shown in the graph, is a much smaller $4299 per individual.




The real “rub” here is that the high cost sector (65+) is already on single payer coverage – Medicare. Single payer, delivered on demand, rather than being paid for whether needed or not (health insurance) is a money saver. If the average American worker had employer provided premiums deducted as Health care coverage and sent directly to the single payer provider (Call it Medicare or whatever) they would, in most cases, spend less annually for the same care, especially considering the already out of paycheck for family coverage if appropriate, and Medicare deductions.

Medicare “Advantage” or Medicare?

I place the word “advantage” in quotes for a reason – that being that there is plenty of cause to question the advantage, if any. First consider thus question: “Why would private insurers create and push Medicare Advantage (MA) plans unless they were profitable” They do because they are. Period.

One reason is that Medicare advantage plan providers inflate probable costs to ensure profit and then negotiate payments to end providers and drug companies down. Richard Kronick, former director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), in a February 2017 Health Affairs blog, warned that because the MA payment system over-rewards plans for the medical risks their enrollees face, “Unless there is a further policy response, Medicare will substantially overpay MA plans over the coming decade—likely to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.” Make you feel better?

About 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries choose MA plans. Their market share is forecast to become a rising percentage of a growth market, given the sustained surge of Americans turning 65 (“Boomers”) who no longer have employer coverage and are required by law to be covered by Medicare. It’s a sweet deal for insurers—they sell a legally required product that more and more people must have. Uncle Sam lays out most of the bucks while insurers reap as much money as they can under Medicare’s burdensome (but ultimately profitable) rules.

One common blatant fallacy proliferated by those who profit from private health care is that since Medicare doesn’t pay doctors or hospitals (in most cases) what they charge for a procedure, that Medicare for all would harm them. News flash. A) Doctors and hospitals routinely elevate charges to offset that (check what was “billed” for Tylenol while in for a hip replacement), and B) MAs don’t pay the nominal charge either so no harm, no foul, on that score

MA has some advantages, mostly to their own benefit, and some of which, to gain your attention, they advertise and “pass on” to you” as if from their own largesse. There are also disadvantages which vary from MA plan to plan. One such is a limited group of physicians to choose from with HMO plans. Another might be having to be referred from one provider to another, possibly not of the client’s choice. Another, and more serious, is that due to the regional nature of many MA plans it is possible to be in another part pf the country, have an issue requiring a specialist, and not be covered by insurance. This is not the case with Medicare anywhere in the US.

On the flip side, Basic Medicare doesn’t cover drugs and, while this coverage is not legally required, it is a practical necessity for most of us “seniors.” Such coverage is offered under Part D of Medicare, but recall – at full price, by law. Many MA plans, by contrast, are offered with a Part D-compliant drug plan built in, as well as the clout to bargain lower drug costs, making them a more convenient way to shop for Medicare in the eyes of many consumers.

Many MA plans can afford to offer coverage superior to basic Medicare, primarily, in large measure because most MA plans use their own network of hospitals and doctors, while basic Medicare is a fee-for-service program that lets beneficiaries use whichever providers they wish, so long as the provider is licensed by the agency, which nearly all are. By building a provider network within which it has leverage to bargain for favorable pricing, MA insurers can reduce costs. Read this as: “We, the MA, provide you, MDs, a stream of patients and you charge us less. So much for the “Doctors will be hurt” rumor.

What many Americans also seem to erroneously believe about MAs is that, in a “No premium, just Give us your Medicare part B Advantage” plan, somehow, magically, that $134.50 per month is you “paying for” the MA. Reality is, as usual, revelatory here. Medicare accepts “bids” from MA providers for each group of potential users. It might be by county, metropolitan statistical area, etc. These bids are the amount per person an MA provider will “take” and are adjusted by patient risk (age, pre-existing conditions, etc.). One such March 2018 report to Congress gives the example of an 84-year-old male in a certain county who’s not eligible for Medicaid. A monthly capitated payment to a MA provider for his care would be $5,707. reports. For an otherwise equivalent man with diabetes the heightened risk score would turn that into $6,765. And what about one with vascular disease as well? The plan would get $9,796 for that gentleman’s care. 

Nationwide, the rate per person Medicare provides the MA Plan provider is in the $800 monthly range. In Sumter County Florid, where I reside, the monthly amount remitted by Medicare to the MA provider per beneficiary is $915. Yes, that’s per person, per month, or $10,980 annually. See why Providers line up at the trough? MA providers make significant profit from these generous estimates. Should healthcare be “for profit?” What Medicare pays MAs for seniors is more than double the real spending figures for the entire spectrum of the population! 

This by the way is one source for the inflated “$10,000 per person for Medicare for all” canard being leveled at Liz Warren.

Admin costs: Proliferation of providers added to the multiple steps between service rendered and fees paid, adds up to absurdly high non-medical costs. This can best be shown by the “no co-pay” we experienced before our family practice providers' corporate geniuses decided that they would only accept MA plans. Since we really liked our family physician, we changed to an MA plan. Suddenly we had an office visit co-pay! Why?- because with Medicare and Tricare, both government programs, with access to the same data bases, the co-pay billing was automatically electronically sent to Tricare with zero admin cost or effort, and we never saw a bill. As an MA provider the practice now was faced with billing the MA, and separately billing Tricare, which they initially declined to do since it increased their admin workload. We had a “one-way conversation” and fixed the issue but multiply that by 25,000 military retirees in our metropolitan statistical area alone and you get the picture. The same issue exists, at least potentially, for any and all supplement plans.

A recent article in The Guardian was critical of the NHS for their 14% admin costs (of all NHS spending 14% was spent on management and administration. Overall US Healthcare administrative costs are in the 30% range, at well over $1 trillion annually.

The next time the subject of single payer arises, this should provide some ammunition with which to begin a sane and rational discussion.

Health Care Part 1

Health Care part 1

What follows was an enclosure to an e-mail from a somewhat conservative friend:

       “The Urban Institute has no motive to attack Warren. It's a progressive think tank. They likely didn't even account for the cost of Warren's pledge to “give free health care to every illegal alien who sneaks into the country” (no motive?). Who's going to pay for all this? Divide $3.4 trillion a year by 320 million Americans and you get more than $10,000 per person. Not per taxpayer. Per person. That includes every child, every retiree, every prison inmate. That would be the largest tax ever assessed in American history, by far. It would change everything. An awful lot of people would just leave the country.”

        He then asked me (because he knows I’ll respond): “Is this true?”  I should point out that the individual referred to above is a dear friend, and also a senior military reserve officer. As usual the first though I had was, “Well, XXX, why don’t you do the research and tell me?” Even as I wrote it, I knew that the answer was that he’d rather goad me into it. I then included links to four separate recent blog posts on single payer and health care costs.

       However, as XXX knew I would, I looked closer at the numbers and wondered how accurate they were. Off the top, I found data which cast the claims above in a far different light.

       It is critical to note that only one population segment comes close to the $10,000/year spending claim. So, having that kind of time, and rather than just guessing, I researched US population demographic data with the aim of determining what percentage of total population falls into which age group, calculating the total expense per group, and dividing by the total population to find a real “average" cost per individual. 

 The (rounded) percentages of the total represented by each population segment in the graph below is:

Ages 0-5 – 6.8%, 

Ages 5-17 - 22.2%,

Ages 18-44 – 36.9% 

Ages 45-64 – 22%

Ages 65 + - 12.4%

The immediate and obvious “takeaway” here is 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. It is only fair to point out that these are 2016 demographics, but they are reasonably representative.

       But wait, as they say, there’s more: on average, employers pay 82 Percent of health insurance for single coverage. In 2018, the average company-provided health insurance policy totaled $6,896 a year for single coverage. Yes, that’s more than the average expenditure for the earning age group, but, “Hey, it’s a business!” Again, on average, employers paid 82 percent of the premium, or $5,655 a year. Employees paid the remaining 18 percent, or $1,241 a year. This is money neither the employer nor employee ever see as spendable income. It’s a cost to the boss and a deduction from the worker. Additionally, the average employee (and the boss!) also “contributes” $1537 to Medicare. What the Urban institute study does is to grossly inflate the per-person cost by using the high spending of 12.4 % of the population over 65, and ignoring the following:

       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. [As an aside, New results from an industry organization's annual study shows that large employers expect the total average per-employee cost for health insurance benefits — which includes premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employees and dependents — to rise in 2018 to $14,156 from $13,482 this year!].The crux of all this is that for the average US individual worker, there is a total of around $8433 annually, never seen in a pay envelope except as a deduction, which goes to healthcare spending! There is a much higher figure for family coverage, (as much as $6000 more annually, which I did not even factor in) 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.

        This is a low estimate since many, if not most, of the workers counted singly here (and their employers) are paying significantly more for family coverage.  Just as a math exercise, that means that right now (and these numbers exclude some high earners in business not considered industrial) between employer contributions to insurance and employee payroll deductions there is already about $4,000 for every individual in the country sent to either private insurers or Medicare annually and if family plan costs were factored in, probably more like $7,000!

        Summarizing: The “study” used exaggerated numbers to begin with and then further ignored the dollars already spent on health care. Using the real, mathematically derived “average per person annual health care spending” of $4,299 and subtracting the roughly $4,000 per every member of the population (actually even higher), already taken from either employer or paycheck, what do we have left? Yep, about $300 more per year, vice $10,000. Remember, it's actually better than that because I didn't factor in extra deductions for family coverage.  

As Mark Twain famously said, “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.”   

Additionally, single payer systems are simply more efficient. Even another good friend, the very Republican dentist, concurs. I will expand on this, National Health Care, Drug costs and Medicare “advantage” plans in part II.   

The Truth

Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman 

      This is verbatim from a published transcript of Colonel Vindman’s testimony yesterday. I have edited out irrelevant data to focus on the reason for the testimony. It was published in WaPo, but since, 1) It’s important and 2) Non-subscribers can’t read it, I copied and pasted. I have highlighted those statements which would validate the assertions regarding the calls to Ukraine, the content thereof, and the inappropriate extortion applied by Trump and his Ambassador.

       Finally, I know some readers still, for goodness knows what reason, still support Trump. It is mind boggling but, before you play the patriot card and carp about the impeachment hearings, do yourselves a favor and actually read this statement, made by a man who has nothing to gain from doing so, but whose sincere patriotism compels him to.



Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, October 29, 2019.

“Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees concerning the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.”

Background: “I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart. Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this role, I have served in the United States’ embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the National Security Council. The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.”

There is more career data, unrelated to the gist of the testimony, and then this:

Relevant Events: “When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelenskyy: “On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory. President Zelenskyy was seen as a unifying figure within the country. He was the first candidate to win a majority in every region of the country, breaking the claims that Ukraine would be subject to a perpetual divide between the Ukrainian-and Russian-speaking populations. President Zelenskyy ran on a platform of unity, reform, and anti-corruption, which resonated with the entire country. In support of U.S. policy objectives to support Ukrainian sovereignty, President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. I was one of several staff and officers who listened to the call. The call was positive, and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.”

 

May 21, 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine:

“On May 21, 2019, I was directed by Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill to join the delegation attending President Zelenkskyy’s inauguration. When the delegation returned, they provided a debriefing to President Trump and explained their positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. I did not participate in the debriefing.”

Oleksandr Danylyuk Visit –July 10, 2019:

“On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland also attended, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short. Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland again emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate. Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel.

Election Call –July 25, 2019:

“On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.”

Conclusion: The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace. It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America’s national security interests. Thank you again for your consideration, and now I would be happy to answer your questions.”

There really shouldn’t need to be any questions, should there.

Yeah There Was a Leak - To Russia

Yeah, there was a leak…. to Russia!

        House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday called on the White House to brief lawmakers on the raid that targeted Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, noting that President Trump had informed Russia of the military operation before telling congressional leadership. Of course, if he had, his decision to golf during the raid would have been far more difficult to obfuscate, especially if he had briefed any Republicans who might have been concerned enough to follow the operation in real time from the situation room, where Trump’s absence might have troubled even them.

       The statement from Pelosi came after Trump told reporters at a lengthy, and mainly self-aggrandizing news conference that he didn’t inform the House speaker of the raid because he “wanted to make sure this kept secret.” This rings hollow, because presidents typically follow the protocol of contacting congressional leaders, regardless of their political party, when a high-level military operation is conducted.

       The leaders of both Houses are sometimes referred to as the “gang of eight,” the common colloquial term for the bi-partisan group of eight legislators, four Democrats and four Republicans—who wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. They were briefed by President Barack Obama prior to the Bin Laden raid in 2011.

        This continued and blatant shunning of bipartisanship, documented and verified by Trump himself, is amazing in that he has, personally, divulged sensitive intelligence material numerous times to the chagrin of the intelligence community, many of which now loathe him. His implication, of course, is predicated on his belief that Ms. Pelosi would act as he (Trump) might well have done. The "leaks" he refers to have come, not from Democratic leadership, but primarily from disaffected Trump former (and perhaps still in place) staffers who realize the emperor's nudity. This is more Trump slander.

        That Trump effectively accused Democratic leaders of being willing to put partisanship before country over something as serious as a special forces attack on America’s top national security target is a sign of how wide the gulf has become under his presidency.

        As previously mentioned, Trump’s griping about the extent of leaking is entirely understandable – his administration has, for years, been as leaky as a sieve. In (again documented) fact, most of the big stories to emerge from inside the White House have come not from Democrats but from his own inner circle of senior aides, or from the whistleblower within the intelligence community who sounded the alarm over Ukraine.

        An example of  Trump’s apparent lack of discernment may be sensed by the fact that he did brief Senator Lindsey Graham, not a member of the Gang of Eight, and someone who would not normally be in the loop, while there is serious doubt that Mitch McConnell knew of the raid beforehand. Yet, Graham, who Trump apparently thinks is a “righteous dude” said this, just weeks earlier, when asked about the removal at Trump’s whim of US forces from Syria: "My statement to you is this is worse than what Obama did. When Obama left Iraq all hell broke loose and if you think, Mr. President (he’s addressing Trump, here), ISIS is only a threat to Europe you really don't understand ISIS," Graham them added that “U.S. allies should be "unnerved" by Trump's decision. Asked if this was Trump's Vietnam, Graham said, "No — this is worse."  The previous statements by Senator Graham almost make the Al Baghdadi raid seem like an attempt by Donnie to appease his buddy Lindsey, huh?

       In a final commentary on the above Graham statement, one must realize that blaming Obama for reducing US troop strength in Iraq, and by that measure for the rise of ISIS, is, more than anything else, an attempt to deflect accountability for the destabilization of Iraq from The Bush 43 regime where it rightfully rests. The Bush decision to remove the government of Iraq, in response to an attack masterminded in Afghanistan and funded in Saudi Arabia must surely rate as one of the worst gaffes in geopolitical history since the Gulf of Tonkin myth was perpetrated by LBJ at the urging of Robert McNamara. And yes, Bob McNamara admitted and regretted that hoax and self-flagellated over it until his death, not that that regret brought back any of the 2 million who died in a needless conflict. Sadly, Neither Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney, unhampered by any semblance of conscience, will ever accept any equivalent responsibility for urging a compliant and malleable George W. Bush into attacking and destabilizing the entire civil structure of Iraq, which led to the influx of ISIS to fill the gap.

         ISIS, contrary to what Senator Graham apparently believes, was established in 1999. The group was founded by Jordanian Salafi jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In a letter published by his growing Coalition in February 2004, Zarqawi wrote that jihadis should use bombings to start an open sectarian war so that Sunnis from the Islamic world would mobilize against assassinations carried out by Shia, specifically the Badr Brigade, against Ba'athists and Sunnis.

        And where were they to find disaffected Sunnis without secular leadership or government? How about the newly acquired US dependency of Iraq, where after the deposition of Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration, at Rumsfeld’s insistence, ordered all former police and military (both secular organizations) to be barred from active roles in rebuilding Iraq. This became an open invitation to ISIS, as newly “freed” Iraqis were also newly impoverished Iraqis. “Hello, we’re from ISIS and we’re here to help!”  

  

      Comparisons of Obama in Iraq And Trump in Syria have been lambasted by one individual who actually, unlike Trump, knows a bit about the issue.  The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in 2011, Jim Jeffrey (now Trump’s special envoy for Syria and who also served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser) well understands the complexity of Iraq and disputed that notion at the time (2014): “The argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints.”  

       Jeffrey, an acknowledged Mid-East expert, maybe even the US Mid-East expert, is far from singular in that opinion. In fact, he acknowledged to a Senate committee that he had been neither consulted or notified prior to the apparently unilateral and spur of the moment Trump decision to pull troops from Syria.

        Compare all US efforts in the region with Trump’s abandonment of the local forces – the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — who expelled ISIS from eastern Syria. The SDF enlisted in the fight not only to take back their towns, but with reliance, based on assurances provided during both the Obama and Trump administrations that U.S. support would continue after the war. Part of that commitment was a promise to give them some input into the political future of Syria, but that pledge is now in question, especially now that Russia has hurried to fill the gap and, possibly, the political focus. Founded in October 2015, the SDF states its mission as fighting to create a secular, democratic and decentralized Syria. These seem like fairly American values, yet those are the folks we abandoned.

        Now vulnerable to decidedly hostile Turkish forces, the SDF, in particular its Kurdish element, will likely need to cut a deal with the Assad regime. In short, our small military force provided political and military benefits with scope far greater than just the numbers of boots on the ground might indicate to the uninformed. The cost to U.S. credibility will resonate for years in the region, and perhaps beyond.  

        Saddam Hussein was the devil we knew. For the majority of Iraqis, life became far more difficult due to the “weapons of mass destruction” fraud and subsequent creation of a power void we would neither fill nor allow to be filled because of Bush  administration insistence in barring competent, experienced and, generally secular officials from a new Iraqi regime. US credibility, already suspect in some quarters, has taken another hit in the Trump abandonment of the SDF. In course, if one views Putin as an honorable man….!  

  

The Little Essay That Grew

        Sometimes I begin what I envision as a brief comment to post on Facebook and the muse seizes me and the scope of the screed widens. Such is today’s blog entry, Enjoy (you probably won’t if you’re a Republican)

        Two more news items today which should, but won’t, make Trumpists realize that their favorite arsehole has no grasp on the real world.

       The first, in a small(ish) inset on the front page, is a story which condenses to “Acting Defense Secretary, Mike Espy, announces that the US will send troops and armored vehicles to Northern Syria to “protect the oil fields.”  But wait, Mike, didn’t your boss just pull troops out of Syria several weeks ago?

        Does he now feel that enough Kurds have been killed to satisfy his Turkish pals? Of course, the newly deployed US troops will get a chance to, perhaps, meet some newly assigned Russian troops, since Putin rapidly acted to fill the void left by US initial withdrawals. Sadly, Trump supporters will just shake their heads as if they were watching drunken uncle Elmer charring burgers at a barbecue and say, “bless his heart, he don’t know no better.”  

       In even smaller print was the announcement that Jet Blue has been ordered by the Trump administration, to cease and desist scheduling all flights to Cuba except to Havana. This is, simply Trump cancelling an Obama executive order, not because doing so makes any sense whatsoever, but solely because they were Obama directives. What a needy, petty little man Trump has deteriorated into! Scratch that, he’s always been this way.

        Oh, and I almost forgot, the deficit is now over a trillion dollars. Of course, Trump and the minority of modern economists who espouse Modern Monetary Theory, will simply say, “No biggie, we just print more money.”  I have no intention of attempting to debate the validity of MMT, since the real economists (I just play one on TV) aren’t even in accord on the matter.

       Let’s assume, for reality’s sake, for the rest of this paragraph or two, that the prevailing (majority) theory that deficits are bad is valid. Then let’s recall how many times we have heart the words “Tax and spend liberals” issued as curse words from the political right. The too frequent use of this pejorative would, at first glance, seem to imply that Democrats are the wastrels who run up deficits while Republicans, who see themselves as deficit hawks and good stewards of public funds are the righteous guardians of the till and sound fiscal policy.

       Like much of what we hear these days, it’s a blatant lie. There have been conservatives who address the deficit (Paul Ryan was one such) but the focus of their spending cuts always seems to center on those, such as Medicare and Social Security recipients, who can least afford it, while taxes on the business elite are reduced. Accompanying these aims are the efforts to “privatize” things which are now done by the Government. Medicare is an efficient administrator of what it does, although hamstrung by mandated higher drug prices. The Pharma industry is barely, if at all, restricted in drug pricing and we all pay that price, even while many such meds are developed with NIH grants which, one might argue, means that those patents should belong to all of us, not one of us!

        Be that as it may, let’s look at the validity of the “tax and spend” charge as it relates to recent deficits. First, however, I will state, knowing that Republicans will cringe and call foul, that the Obama era deficits fall outside the “normal” flow of things due to the Great Recession which seeds were planted in the 2000-2007 period, but bore fruit just as Obama inherited the mess.

         The blame for that rests, in the opinion of far smarter individuals than I, with the advent of mortgage brokerages who issued and promptly sold, risky mortgages, knowing they’d never have to collect them, and large, essentially un-regulated  commercial banking houses, several of whom failed out-right, and more of which were bolstered by almost $700 billion in TARP funds. Interestingly enough, this resulted in almost all the commercial banking houses eventually being made whole, but was of no impact on those who homes were suddenly worth markedly less than they had paid at the same time they were laid off or “made redundant” as our Brit friends say. Looking at the Obama deficits shows that the deficits incurred were, in the main, aimed at preventing a slide into another Great Depression, and counter to allegations to the contrary, there were no “decreases in welfare eligibility rules, or “free giveaways” which was a favorite anti-Obama mantra. Even the “Obama-Phone” (never existed) was a Bush 43 program signed into law in 2008.

        So, let’s look at the non-fiscal emergency deficits:

The Top Five Contributors by Percentage: These are, regardless of circumstances, the highest percentage increases in the debt not counting the Trump data: Note that “debt” is not “deficit.”  Each year’s deficit is additive to the debt. The listing which follows lists Presidents by percentage increase, which is a bit misleading. For example, if the national debt was $10.00 (if only) a $20.00 deficit would increase it by 300%.

 Franklin D. Roosevelt: Strictly on a Percentage basis, FDR increased the debt by the largest amount. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048% increase from the $23 billion debt level left by President Herbert Hoover. Like Obama, he faced a huge economic downturn, and, of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. The New Deal cost billions. But FDR's major contribution to the debt was World War II spending. He added $209 billion to the debt between 1942 and 1945.

Woodrow Wilson: Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt, on a percentage basis. He added $21 billion, which was a 727% increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. During his presidency, the Second Liberty Bond Act gave Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.

Note: both these Democratic Presidents had World Wars, not of their making, to finance. It is also worthy of note that neither had Medicare or Social Security to pay either.  

Ronald Reagan: Reagan increased the debt by 186%. Reaganomics added $1.86 trillion. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. That was partly because Reagan increased the defense budget by 35%. So, in essence, this was a “cut taxes, but spend more” approach. As has Trump, Reagan did what he did against the advice of almost every real economist in the nation. His own Veep (Bush 41) called it “Voodoo economics.” (If only his son had listened)

We interrupt this litany of increasing debt obligation for the eight Clinton years:  Clinton had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998-2001, the only such years from 1970-2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. Sadly, however, this would soon dissolve.

George W. Bush: President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest dollar amount, and fourth-largest percentage increase. Bush increased the debt by 101% from the end of FY 2001, which was the last Clinton budget.

Faced with the promise of a budget surplus, Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks. The War on Terror included two wars. The War in Afghanistan cost $1.1 trillion and the unjustified Iraq War cost $1 trillion more. Bush budgets increased military spending to record levels of $600 billion to $800 billion a year, while tax cuts, primarily on the wealthy, reduced revenues. “W” also responded to the slight 2001 recession by passing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare.

Barack Obama: Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise. He added $8.588 trillion. This 74% increase was the fifth largest. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus (TARP or “Bailout”) package, approved under Bush, paid for under Obama. It added $831 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.

       Clearly, there is no mythical partisan split on “Tax and Spend” in fact, what emerges is more a Republican pattern in the last 40 years, of “cut taxes on the wealthy and spend anyway.” But surely that can’t be true for this “really great and wonderful” Trump economy can it? Sadly, the data says otherwise, in fact it screams otherwise.

       With no major war to fund, a self-proclaimed booming economy, and low unemployment, one might think we’d see a Clinton budget redux. The reality is depressing. The federal budget deficit increased 26% percent in 2019, reaching just over $984 billion, the highest in seven years because the government was forced to borrow more money to pay for Trump’s tax and spending policies. The deficit has increased nearly 50 percent during the Trump presidency and is projected to exceed $1 trillion in 2020.

       Annual budget deficits have now increased for four consecutive years, the first such run since the early 1980s. Another cut taxes and increase spending administration. This is a sharp rebuke to Trump, who promised as “candidate Trump” to eliminate deficits within eight years by cutting spending and expanding the economy.

 A tragic commentary on this whole contradictory mess comes from 2017, when officials had attempted to warn Trump during a meeting that debt could spike further in the coming years. Trump was indifferent however, once he realized the problem was only likely to become critical after he had completed a possible second term. “Yeah, but I won’t be here,” he said, a source who had been in the room at the time recalled. This quote has been sourced from several witnesses and is tragic in its revelation that Trump just doesn’t care.

Today’s “news” 10/25/2019

Today’s “news” 10/25/2019

        Let’s start with the “good” news first. On awakening tomorrow, I will have turned 77 years old. Twelve days after that, I will get a new right hip. Growing old ain’t for sissies, but it definitely beats the alternative.

        There is no “Florida Oddity” labeled as such in today’s local paper, but the entire back page full color ad makes up for it. You see, there is this guy, Norman Lee, a mediocre singer who found Jesus and became a graduate of the “close cover before striking” school of theology. He still performs, at times, at a local venue, Katie Belle’s, since apparently the scam he’s running doesn’t pay all the bills. He has established a “church” called The Garden, with himself as pastor (someone has to fleece the sheep) and his wife as co-defendant. OK that’s a bit harsh, let’s try “accessory” instead. The garden has, in addition to (one supposes), some place of worship, a petting zoo, a gift shop, and the subject of today’s full color, full page ad – the just announced  "Holy Cow Ice Cream Shop." No, really! And I thought Elsie was contented.

        The advert shows the pair with their camel, goat, and sheep, in some sort of enclosure, which I guess is “The Garden” in question, as in “Eden”.   This operation is like Ken Ham’s “Ark Experience” lite. Not to be outdone, of course Orlando still has the abominable Holy Land experience replete with “crucifixion du jour.”  

       On a more serious note and far more distressing to anyone with a brain, is the notice of the Russian summit with a number of African nations. These are, of course, the “shitholes” referred to by Donald Trump last year. The vacuum created by Trump’s back turning on African interests opens the door to Russia's gaining wider access, followed one might guess, by control of a vast storehouse of largely untapped natural resources, since   the continent holds around 30% of the world's known mineral reserves. These include cobalt, uranium, diamonds and gold, as well as significant oil and gas reserves.  It must be noted that these are only the identified and proven reserves, not the entire potential treasure trove which Russia covets.

         This is far worse than first glance might indicate, since a mine in South Africa is now producing the highest grade rare earths (scarce minerals critical to electronics) in the world at a time when Trump ill- advised tariff/trade wars raise the specter of the world’s largest producer (China) throttling back US deliveries. Should Russia establish a foothold in Central Africa a squeeze of White controlled South Africa (And crucial resources for US tech) could well ensue.

        This is simply the latest (Syria anyone?) blatant action to allow Russia the opportunity improve the status of their oligarchy at our expense. If Trump truly is seeking a return to isolationism, he’s making a very poorly concealed and fatally flawed effort to do so. There is a difference between support and interference, which Trump apparently can’t comprehend. Putin plays Trump like a Stradivarius, and Trump is apparently unaware, as long as his spawn can continue building in Russia, Turkey, and elsewhere.

       And, finally, while this may not mean much if anything to most readers, Spain, after almost half a century, finally has done the right thing. Following the death of Spanish Fascist dictator, Francisco Franco (who, SNL fans may remember, is "still dead"), there was built in the side of a mountain outside Madrid, near San Lorenzo de El Escorial, a huge and grandiose mausoleum, named “The Valley of the Fallen.”   Vast and impressive, the underground structure extends from the front wall about 270 yards into the mountain and is constructed as a basilica. The thousands (actually about 40,000) of Spanish Civil War casualties buried within are stacked outside the inner walls behind chapels with no mention of name or even acknowledgment of their presence. Franco, however, the true architect of all the violence was, until recently, interred under a marble stone at the altar on which flowers were always present.

40,000 nameless are buried under this mountain. Only one grave had a marker  

Franco, on the other hand, remained a visible object of adoration by Spain's wealthy (or at least some of them) and an object of revulsion for most of the rest.  In a final slap, prisoners and convicts did the bulk of the work.

This was a source of contention at the time when it was done and has been ever since. Removal of Franco’s corpse to be re-interred next to his wife is what amounts to the last vestige of “de- Francoisation” of post-Fascist Spain, where about half of today’s Spaniards still regret that they weren’t allowed to piss on the grave first.

       And finally:  James Bond walked into a bar. He sat down next to a sweet young thing and ordered (what else) a martini, “shaken, not stirred.”  As he sipped, the young lady noticed his very stylish watch and commented on it. 007 explained that “Q branch” had made it exclusively for him and it was capable of amazing things. “Really, like what?” “Well, love, I can tell by this watch that you aren’t wearing any underpants.”

The young lady smiled and said, “Oh but I am!”

Frowning, Bond shook his wrist and muttered “The damned thing's running fast again.”

Enjoy your day!

Not Much Good News

Wow, today’s (10/23) paper is definitely not the “feel good” issue for the week.

         Two separate but related stories are the proof. Page one inset: “Russia, Turkey to Fill Void Left by Departure of US Troops.”  Think about that and then reflect on the second article, buried about three pages in: “US Asks NATO to Pay More for Saudi Arabia.”  Yes, you read it correctly, After abandoning the Kurds and northern Syria to Turkey and Russia, whose hegemony deepens the tragedy for the Kurds as it enhances relations between nations with the capacity for choking the Bosphorus and limiting Black Sea access, should they so desire, Trump now seeks more NATO aid to a non-NATO power. These are the same Saudis, remember, who sourced funds indirectly for the 911 attacks, ordered the recent butchering of a journalist in Turkey, and should be capable of defending themselves.

        Understand: Saudi Arabia is only slightly lower in population than Iran, its sworn enemy. It is the richest of the world’s Arab nations. As the strongest Sunni nation, it is at odds with Iran in much the same way Protestants and Catholics opposed, and eventually slaughtered, each other in the Thirty Years’ war. On a per capita basis, it has the most mineral wealth of any nation in the world. The Kurds needed our protection, yet were abandoned, the Saudis don’t, yet….?  One wonders just how much Trump owes The Kingdom.

       On a somewhat lighter but even more confusing note, the headline reads “Police Shoot to Stop Driving on the Sidewalk.”  While odd, this is hardly bizarre, that is until you read the brief article, which is from Copenhagen, Denmark. An armed man stole an ambulance in Oslo (yep, that’s in Norway!) but as the article reads, was in Copenhagen, driving on the sidewalk with an Uzi, several rifles and “a large amount of narcotics.”  There is no explanation of how or if the Ambulance got from Norway to Denmark but, having been to both, I can attest to the fact that it’s a hell of a drive!

        Today’s “Florida Oddity” is less oddity than stupidity. An Uber driver in Hollywood, Florida (although this sounds more like the “other” Hollywood) was responding to a call on Sunday night, with his handgun on the seat beside him. He was allowing the passengers to enter the car, and while attempting to holster his gun, accidentally discharged it, wounding a juvenile in the back seat. The child survived, but one hopes the driver’s employment with Uber will not.

       Finally, Mongo has died at age 38, the oldest of his kind ever. He was in good health right up to the end of his life in America. With an expected lifetime of 20 years, he beat the odds, and apparently the heat. As an African, he was out of place in Pueblo, Colorado. As an African Penguin, he was even farther from a natural habitat. RIP Mongo.    

A Real American Success Story

Some of this has been previously published (by me) in early 2016, but the attacks on Mrs. Warren by other candidates last night compel me to edit and repost.   

        It seems that the latest Far Right and now, to an extent, Democratic would be candidates indoor sport is bashing Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren. Slurs range from Trumps' repeated "Pocahontas" insult, to a new fave, throwing stones at her because she was a highly paid Harvard Law professor before her Senate gig.

       The new slurs go along the line "Warren was paid $430,000 annually for teaching a class at Harvard." This is actually the setup for then wondering how she can claim to represent the economically disadvantaged when she is a "one percenter." For an answer to this ask Bill Gates, LeBron James, Robert Smith, or Warren Buffett. All from simple beginnings, all wealthy now, all immensely generous with their earnings.

        This intimation that having gotten rich makes one unable to identify with those less fortunate is just another dog whistle political ploy, more suited to Donald Trump than to any Democrat. In truth, Trump does exemplify that stereotype, except for one detail – he was born rich, made even richer by a tax cheat father and, yet, has since bankrupted five times. And yes, he has shown little or no real regard for anyone socially disadvantaged unless they represent votes or photo ops.

       As regards Liz Warren: First issue, she was paid in the high three hundred thousands, vice the stated $430,000, the rest coming from paid consulting jobs.  A significant portion of that pay was compensation in the form of a faculty mortgage subsidy and housing allowance. Warren was not a fiscally struggling state legislator when she went to Harvard and the big bucks, but a tenured professor with 34 years of university level Law School Teaching. You know, a real job in a real University, not a real estate scam.

      Warren started her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers School of Law–Newark in 1977, at age 28.  She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980 and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981 returning as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87).

         Early on in her legal career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law. The vast majority of both houses of Congress, academically, can't carry her undies to the laundry.

       Dr. Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A. Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Penn to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who attended law school at an American public university. At Harvard, Warren became one of the most highly cited law professors in the United States. No one, as far as I can determine, has ever cited Trump favorably about anything of real substance, let alone in the area of law! Although she had published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy. Warren's scholarship and public advocacy were the impetus behind the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

        In 2009, the Boston Globe named her the Bostonian of the Year and the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts honored her with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. She was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009, 2010 and 2015. The National Law Journal repeatedly has named Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America, and in 2010 it honored her as one of the 40 most influential attorneys of the decade

       In 2009, Warren became the first professor in Harvard's history to win the law school's The Sacks–Freund Teaching Award for a second time. In 2011, she delivered the commencement address at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark, where she was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree.

        In debates, some have mentioned Warren’s Harvard salary — tax returns (which we have seen, as opposed to “you know who”) show it was close to $350,000 her last full year — as a negative and criticized her teaching workload. Harvard Law professors spend, on average, five hours a week in the classroom, with the bulk of their time reserved for research, writing, student advising, and administrative tasks. “Professor,” as critics use it, has become a somewhat pejorative title, something less than an honorific — an image conjured of Warren as Harvard elitist, liberal ideologue, scolding schoolmarm.

       In fact, at Harvard, she is known as none of those. Widely admired by students and faculty, she was considered tough but fair, whip smart but warm, inspiring, and accessible. Warren, who is on leave, because she actually shows up for her Senate gig, has won student-nominated teaching awards at four of the five universities where she has taught. As Senator, Elizabeth Warren has missed just 11 of over 1093 roll call votes in her time in the Senate, about 1 %, while Bernie Sanders has missed almost 10%. Not that Bernie is the king of slackers - Marco Rubio has only shown up 7.1% of the time! Based on attendance, Warren is worth a whole lot more than she's being paid, and Rubio considerably less.

        The real reason, of course for the slanderous treatment of Senator Warren, is to attempt to demean and diminish the impact of her advocacy for the financially disadvantaged. I guess the twisted logic is along the lines of "How can she care about the poor when she's so wealthy?" That’s the sort of question more suited to a slavering attack dog like a Trump or Giuliani than any Democrat.

        Here's how; she's been there! Warren was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents.  She was their fourth child, with three older brothers. When she was 12, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he couldn’t do his previous work. Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears. When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant (you know, like AOC but 6 years younger?). So, spare me the "how can she identify with the economically disadvantaged?" drivel! She’s lived it. 

       Warren became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high school boyfriend.

        Warren later moved to Houston with her husband, who was then a NASA engineer. There she enrolled in the University of Houston, graduating in 1970 with a bachelor’s degree in speech pathology and audiology. For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate", as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate. Again, super creds!

        Warren and her husband moved for his work to New Jersey, where, after becoming pregnant, she decided to remain at home to care for their child. After their daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark, still a stay at home mom.  Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with their second child. After receiving her J.D. and passing the bar examination, she began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings. Hardly the high life. Her star has risen from there based solely on merit and ability

        So, the next time one decides to slander Senator Warren and chastise her for succeeding in a male dominated profession, one might want to consider that she has risen, not through social position or daddy's money, but by intellect, determination and skill. As a Senator she has already proven herself more than capable in economic policy. I believe her to be the best qualified of all current wannabee Democrats. It is a slight consolation that essentially all the current contestants are far brighter than Donald Trump. Hell, Liz Warren’s daughter has a Wharton MBA, a degree which Trump just couldn’t quite manage.  

Slow News Day

Slow News Day (Unless you’re a Kurd)

       Right off the bat, because I know you love ‘em, there’s no real “odd” Florida oddity today. As close as I could get was that a garbage truck knocked down a power line pole in (naturally) South Florida. The pole came to rest leaning against a condo with its base perilously near a pool of water. Lights out!

        The feel-good story of the day is that one of our neighbors in The Villages, returned from Hawaii several days ago having completed his third triathlon in six weeks. Not bad for 74, huh?

        Odd, but far more serious, is a commission’s recommendation for reinstatement regarding Scott Israel, the Broward County sheriff who was ordered removed by Governor DeSantis after his deputy froze at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, while a shooter was killing 17 children inside and wounding an additional 17.   This was compounded by the fact that two additional Broward deputies also failed to enter. Further investigation found that the sheriff’s office had received at least 45 separate cautionary notifications (Israel initially lied and said "only" 23) about the shooter, Nikolas Cruz and his brother and family in general, but failed to do due diligence in any of them. This included five recent and specific warnings about Cruz “shooting up” the school, becoming known as a “school shooter” and similar warnings. Israel’s office took no concrete actions.  Needless to say, several sets of parents are very angry about the prospect that Israel might be reinstated.

       There is, however, a Maryland oddity today. Police in Adamstown, Md, corralled an animal which was very far afield from its natural haunts. I went to high school about 12 miles north of there and never once saw an alligator in the wild. That aside, a three-footer, happily ensconced in a private retention pond, was captured yesterday. There was no further commentary on where it was taken and in what state of animation. This is another “stupid human trick” involving exotic pets.

       In an even goofier stupid human trick, a Santa Fe, NM, man was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy for erratic driving. At this point, as Ron White famously says, “He had the right to remain silent, but he didn’t have the ability.” Instead, Phillip Quintana offered the deputy a $10,000 bribe and promised to “Make you happier than you can imagine.”  I know, I know, the mind reels with possible scenarios, doesn’t it?

       The fact that Quintana was doing 72 mph in a 35-mph zone was the deputy’s initial incentive for the stop. The $25,275 in cash, the Oxy and the Cocaine found inside the vehicle were the clinchers. There was no further discussion of the nature of deputy’s being "made happy.”

       

        Meanwhile Mike Pence tried to look sorry as he condemned Turkish actions vis a vis Kurds in Syria. Unfortunately, his boss created this situation or, at least enabled it, against the advice of numerous actual diplomats who knew this might happen.  Moral bankruptcy personified.