The Green Eyed Monster

    Right up front, let me say that I don’t particularly care for Taylor Swift’s music, not because of her performance or writing but just because it isn’t the sort of music I listen to. In the same vein, I was never much of a Dolly Parton fan, simply because I don’t care for country music.

Having gotten that established, I would also state that I have great admiration for both of them, and while we’re at it, let’s add Lady Gaga to the mix. All three are more than generous with their resources and time in areas far removed from performance and all three are masters of their chosen genres.

So why the Taylor Swift haters? Let me write the rest as if I were answering one of the several nasty comments related to her.

“Dear Dog in the manger,

Your comments re: Taylor Swift say much more about you than they do about her. She is the supremely successful product of a supportive nuclear family. Everyone she has worked with holds her in high esteem. She has been a successful song writer and singer since her teen years. What were you doing in your teens? She has given millions to charity with minimal publicity. How about you? She has sold out world tours and treated her staff supremely generously everywhere (tipped every tour bus driver $100 k above salary). She has lived a life in the public eye, free of even a hint of inappropriate behavior. She has done so without trying to gain public attention ala all the Kardashians and their ilk.

     I suspect your real problem with Ms. Swift is that she has done all these things with a grace and style which you don’t possess and never will. Jealousy is like an acid. It corrodes the vessel that contains it."

    

                              Straight Talk to Trump Supporters

02/001/2024

What follows is not an opinion or distortion of the facts. I point this out because Trump supporters are used to both and may or may not recognize a factual account (or care).

Trade: Candidate Trump is again flogging the idea of more, and more aggressive, trade actions against China. The problem? Trump proclaimed, when he did it (tariffs) the first time, that “China will pay them.”  Yes he said exactly that. (you know, like Mexico would pay for the border wall?) Any high school economics student knows that tariffs are paid by the importing entity, not the exporter, yet against the advice of almost every sentient economist in America, Trump imposed additional (and punitive in intent) tariffs on China.

 The results? Threefold for simplicity’s sake:

 First, the National Association of Manufacturers, the business entities Trump proclaimed he was “protecting”, has determined that the average American household has been impacted by an additional cost of living of about $850 annually in extra expense specifically as a result. Here’s a simple example: Black and Decker buys some electronics parts for (just an example) power tools from China. They import the parts; they pay a tariff. No, they don’t “eat” the extra cost, rather they pass it on in a slightly higher price to the US consumer.  

Second, China simply retaliated with tariffs on American exports to the People’s Republic, a huge portion of which is (was) soybeans. China did not pay the tariffs; rather they found cheaper sources, Brazil chief among them. This negatively impacted American farmers who relied upon the Chinese market. This led to unintended consequence #3.

Third: as a consequence of the radically decreased market for soybeans, The Department of Agriculture, at Trump’s insistence, increased aid to farmers in the form of subsidies. How much? More than the annual operating budget of the State Department or the Navy’s annual ship construction budget! The cost of Trump trade policy in farm subsidies alone was an estimated $28 billion in 2020.  That’s $84 for every living soul in the USA, parceled out to US agriculture, and some of which recipients are members of Congress. Note: It’s also billions more than is allocated for children’s health insurance!  

Remember, Maga people, this is but one economic legacy of the man who bragged about his academic brilliance while never making the Dean’s list and being unable to qualify for grad school.  

Taxation: Trump, as have Republican Presidents before him, also ballyhooed tax cuts as examples of his grasp of macro government economics. He vaguely referred to the long discredited “trickle down” theory which claims that dollars not spent on taxes will somehow be plowed back into businesses with a resultant Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and federal revenue of more than the loss of tax dollars. The results of the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Trump tax “reforms” show a markedly different result.                   

        Reagan cut taxes and then spent far more money than we had on military buildups. The deficit blossomed. Bush 41 ran in 1988, on a platform of “No new taxes” right up until the steadily increasing deficit led to his signing of a budget reconciliation bill in 1990 which included new taxes in an attempt to deal with a burgeoning deficit. To GHW’s credit this was effective and his successor, Bill Clinton actually increased taxes somewhat and slowed the National debt growth by decreasing the deficit. In fact, from 1989 to 2001 (all Clinton budgets) the deficit dipped to negative numbers for the first time since 1969!  

Unable to leave well enough alone, Bush 43 again reduced taxes, especially on those most able to actually afford to pay them, and then went to war in the Mideast. Two conditions resulted by the end of his 8 years. One, federal annual budget deficits had drastically grown due to (wait for it) spending more and collecting less in federal revenue.

 The second result was a massive lack of oversight in the commercial banking industry, culminating in the housing bubble collapse and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The Obama administration suffered significant deficits due to recession-based spending (including the 2009 Bush legacy of TARP spending of $700 billion) yet the period of 2009 to 2013 saw the most rapid rate of deficit reduction over time to date.

     The deficit remained relatively low until 2016, when Trump was elected and again touted a massive tax cut plan. Understand that, by this time, the “trickle down” myth had been thrown in the trash bin by essentially all real economists. In fact, one Australian Prime Minister referred to it as “The rich pissing on the poor.”     

By the time the Trump tax cuts were enacted, research had repeatedly shown that, for every dollar in tax cuts, only about 70 cents ends up back in the federal pocket, even in the form of GDP growth. Trump knew (or should have known) this but he ploughed ahead, and the deficit blossomed. In fact, the Trump tax cuts will add as much to the federal deficit ($1.9 trillion) as Covid spending has!

To make matters worse, Trump has continually supported, and even pushed for, weakening the Obama era Dodd-Frank legislation designed to avoid another disaster such as the housing bubble collapse of 2008. The failure and risky policies of Silicone Valley Bank are but one early result of these efforts. It should not be lost on any of us that taxpayer bucks bailed out that failed institution.

  Interestingly enough, but characteristic of the Far Right, the initial blame hurled at SVB cited what were characterized as “Woke” policies, when in fact the fault lay with the greatly relaxed oversight and regulatory control which was removed or greatly reduced from the original Dodd-Frank legislation.  

 Why anyone still believes the myth of Trump economic prowess is unfathomable.                

                                     

            Star Parker, Still at it; Still Wrong

 

The unfailingly reprehensible Star Parker has started again. Today's op-ed column in the local paper starts by blaming Social Security for being a “failed Socialist program.” She then speaks with some truth to the fact that the return on the trust fund investment is lower than current interest rates, which it is. What she doesn't say of course is that trust fund assets are invested in long-term government instruments and less liable to fluctuate either up or down depending on markets.

The other thing that Ms. Parker ignores completely is the fact that, as I have written several times before, the Social Security system, as incepted, did not forbid either increasing the withholding rate or modifying the age of eligibility. At the time Social Security was passed in 1936 the average American would not live long enough to receive it because the average lifespan was about 61 and a fraction years. Now the average American lifespan is 78. By 1955 it was already 69 and any Insurance company actuary could have predicted the current status.

      See the problem yet? OK try this also: from 1947 to 1962, the average American woman had statistically more than 3 children (peaking at 3.7 in 1955)

and that remained above that figure until 1963, when the number began declining. The average now is just a hair above 2. This means that for 15 years there were over half as many more US citizens born who would eventually draw Social Security (and draw it longer). Those 1950s “Boomers” are impacting Social Security and Medicare, while a Congress which, from 1950 to today, has done little to substantively deal with the situation, bitches about the deficit.     

Not only are we living longer, but because the baby boom has pumped so many new eligible recipients into this system through the 50s and into the very early 60s we now have more people entering the system than are working and paying into the system. This in itself was not so readily foreseeable; What was foreseeable was the increased lifespan. By 1950 it was obvious that Americans were living longer or remaining healthier longer and if the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy had been willing to do it, the eligibility age should have been increased. A simple plan would have been to pass legislation requiring a 1-year increase in full eligibility every decade until whatever age was deemed appropriate was reached. Initially the full Social Security eligibility age of 65 was based on the assumed physical and mental status of the average recipient. Unfortunately (for the system) 70 is the new 60.

There are those who argue that increasing the retirement age is a negative because it “reduces the benefit for all recipients.” This who cite such a statistic omit the words “Full Benefits.”  Of course, they say this because they cling to several shaky propositions.  The first fallacy is that in those families working 2 minimum wage jobs and struggling to get by if they didn't have Social Security deducted from their pay they would save it in some other sort of financial investment program. A far more likely reality is that, with increased but still marginal income, the decision to not spend the extra money that removing Social Security would provide would more likely result in spending the money on gasoline, a car, clothing, food or any of the other immediate expenses that sometimes are left wanting because of insufficient income.  

        Assuming extra cash would go into savings (a reasonably safe but low interest option) belies the real statistics of the whole economic spectrum.  The numbers speak for themselves. A recent survey found that most Americans had $1,000 or less in personal savings in 2023; a third have $500 or less saved, while 8.5% have between $501 and $1,000. Even more startling, 11.4% said they have no savings. On a per family basis, this means that about one in eight Americans have no financial safety net whatsoever. This, of course, also implies that they are prime candidates for usurious lenders in times of financial stress. 

        As an example, consider a 40 hour per week minimum wage earner (and forget the “Yeah, but they’re all high school kids” argument, because 55% of minimum wage earners are over 25 and 11% are over 55):

Assuming a high end $15 hourly and a 40-hour week, that comes to $600 pre-tax weekly. Federal income tax takes at least $60 dollars of that and Socia Security another $37. Do we really think that if there were no SS deduction, that extra $37 would religiously be saved?

Of course, what those who, like Bush 43, scream “Socialism” when addressing Social Security and urge privatization never mention is the impact which such private accounts could experience in situations such as the housing bubble collapse of 2008 -2010. To begin with the supporters of privatization, many of whom are deep in the pockets of people in the private banking industry, would have you believe that all private investments are safe and would earn more return on investment for the investor. What is implied here but never stated is the requirement for an entirely new branch of government simply to supervise how Social Security monies on an individual basis were invested with an eye towards ensuring the safety of such investments.

Trusting the private banking industry is a huge leap of faith considering the history of such organizations. Let's consider just one such: In 2005, 2006, and 2007 the Bear Stearns Real Estate Trust was an available investment option in my wife's retirement plan with Florida Hospital. I know, you say “Bear Stearns? Why they're a leading investment bank on Wall Street, gotta be safe, right? As I looked at the historical earnings of the trust and saw a 28% per year yield, I actually considered whether we should invest her funds with Bear Stearns. We did not because, unlike the $15.00 an hour minimum wage earner, I actually know something about finance and about reasonable return on investment. The other consideration here, before I continue with Bear Stearns, is that if your investment is a 401K, a Roth IRA, a simple savings account or most other portfolio types, other than guaranteed annuities, what you have when you retire is all you’re going to have (in the assumed absence of Social Security). When you use it all, it’s gone.

        Now back to Bear Stearns real estate trust. In the interest of full disclosure, I am approximating this, because Bear Stearns failed and the fund performance history is no longer available. At its peak the fund was hovering well above the $90 per share range and was largely based on sub-prime mortgages, although we hadn’t actually heard that term yet. Bear Stearns as an entity peaked in the $172 range. Let’s assume one had invested steadily and had watched their retirement pot turn $40,000 in actual investments into $350,000, which is actually a conservative guesstimate based on the Trust’s astronomical growth, and then retired, planning to either sell off shares for income as needed or sell them all and find a nice safe 5% annual income account and use that for living expenses. The retiree could have, over only three days, watched share prices tumble to $5 and their $350,000 turn into roughly $17,000! This happened. Bear Stearns, greedier and more poorly managed than most, failed and was bought by Morgan for $2 per share. On the other hand, of course, in the real world this poor schlub would still have Social Security to keep the wolf from the door, because Social Security isn’t market (or commercial investment bank) dependent.

 Star Parker and her ilk shout “Socialism” like a curse word and ignore the fact that Social Security’s real problem is demographic, not philosophical, and that reasonable action by appropriate legislative measures could have insured its stability. They simply ignore our longer average lifespan and the Baby Boom population “bubble” because it doesn’t fit their narrative.  Secondarily, they also choose to ignore the simple fact that, as Jesus reportedly said, “The poor are always with us.” And they are and always will be. Ms. Parker, who proudly proclaims her “born again” status apparently edits her savior to suit her purpose.

There will always be those among us who, because of various factors, will work hard for low pay, pay income tax, and sales tax and have no savings to speak of. Currently half of the US population aged 65 or older live in households that receive at least 50 percent of their family income from Social Security benefits and about 25 percent of aged households rely on Social Security benefits for at least 90 percent of their family income. Star Parker, like too many Americans, suffers from the egocentric “If I can be financially successful why can’t everyone else?” point of view. She obviously failed Statistics and Sociology.              

 

A Shameful Performance

 

         A Shameful Performance

Once upon a time, there was a school district whose upper-level administrators (read that as the “County Office”) had somehow convinced themselves that the best choices for high school principals were athletic coaches, especially former head football coaches.

        I taught in such a school and soon learned as an outsider, beginning a second career at age 47, that this was a fallacy. First off, the average Phys Ed instructor (head FB coaches primary pool) knows as much about classroom instructional delivery and pedagogy as Liberace knew about rugby. And yet they continued over several decades appointing these persons to supervisory positions which required classroom evaluation of others performing a function which they, themselves, were largely incapable of doing. Fortunately, over time that myth was scotched, and principals were far more likely to have been successful classroom instructors prior to supervisory selection.

        There is a lot to be said for the idea that someone who supervises and, even more specifically, evaluates an individual should know what that job entails. When I began teaching, the principal and two vice principals. all former coaches, had never been classroom instructors. Oddly enough, none of them ever came into my classroom as an evaluator, but I got my first several annual evaluations from one of them.

        I started with this because, apparently the same ludicrous concept has taken root in Alabama, which state has sent to the US Senate a man with zero military experience but 40 years of football coaching of athletes afraid to even question him.  I’m speaking, of course, of Tommy Tuberville, who is single handedly defying both his own Party’s  leaders and the Democratic leadership by refusing to accede to more than (so far) 200 senior military officer  promotions. 

        His objection has nothing to do with their actual fitness for promotion as determined by their superiors’ evaluations and observations, but is based rather on the senator’s personal opinion re: an internal Pentagon policy related to the reproductive rights of service personnel. Tuberville has been holding these proposed military promotion nominations hostage in the Senate as part of a protest of Pentagon reproductive health policies announced earlier this year that provide additional support to service members and dependents who must travel out of state to receive an abortion.

        The individuals whose advancements are being stalled are simply collateral damage in Tuberville’s  personal vendetta against anything or anyone not white, straight, and adamantly pro-life. Lest anyone think I’m exaggerating, here is the Senator on White nationalism: “My opinion of a White nationalist, if someone wants to call them White nationalist, to me is an American.”

Now as an exercise in logic: If White nationalism is racist (and it is) then, by definition, White nationalists are racists. Period. Tuberville apparently also objects to the military’s stance against White nationalism, because it’s simply fine with him. His “boss,” Senator Mitch McConnell, disagrees, having called white nationalism “unacceptable.” Asked by CNN if he was concerned by Tuberville’s refusal to denounce it, McConnell replied, “White supremacy is simply unacceptable in the military and in the whole country.”

        So yes, Alabama, we know you are ranked forty-first among the states in education and sending Tommy Tuberville to the US Senate goes a long way toward explaining why.

On Political incorrectness

Politically incorrect

We are inundated these days with comments from the right attempting to gloss over what would seem to be legitimate concerns about minority rights as simply too much emphasis on being politically correct.

        Some condoned the faux war whoops of those Trump sycophants who sought to denigrate Elizabeth Warren by making fun of her claimed Indian (yes, many Indians believe" Native American" is too politically correct and prefer "Indian") heritage. Like many persons I have known, Senator Warren refers to a family tradition which goes along the lines of, "Oh yes, I'm part Indian." Heard it a lot, don't care enough to investigate, probably true in many more cases than are claimed, especially in Oklahoma, Ms. Warren's home state, where the federal government, beginning in the Jackson administration began the forced warehousing of various tribes from all over the US. But let someone complain about the faux war whoops.... just being overly politically correct. You know who doesn't think so? Indians.  

        In much the same way we hear the LGBT community derided for disliking a horde of cruel, callous and ill meant epithets hurled at them by non-LGBT persons. We hear members of various religious sects derided (mostly by members of other religious sects), for dress or behaviors which affect no one but themselves. Calling attention to these boorish behaviors is almost certain to draw the charge of "too much political correctness."

        We hear the likes of Ted Nugent, the strongest argument ever for retroactive involuntary sterilization, whining that complaints regarding his incredibly vile verbal attacks against Blacks are just so much political correctness.  We heard a President declaring that all the reaction to his mean-spirited characterizations of handicapped persons, women, and essentially anyone who disagrees with him, are just excessive political correctness.

        In truth, most complaints about political correctness come from members of societal or religious groups who have, for centuries held the majority of political power in America. The perceived loss of this control of the process of being American terrifies them.

        Some, I repeat, some, Christians hate the fact that persons of other beliefs or credos don't necessarily believe that they (Christians) should inflict or impose their beliefs on others. They characterize the legitimate complaints of those groups regarding threats and impositions as just so much political correctness, instead of what it is - demand for equal rights in a secular nation. Many of these pseudo-Christians are also white, which doubles the chance that they will use offensive and demeaning attitudes and actions, cloaked in the complaint of "Too PC."

        For centuries the vast bulk of power in America was held, and to a very great degree, still is held, by white, male, self- declared Christians. Look at the sources of the "too PC" whining. It is largely that same group, seeing political change, changes in the rights of minorities, and more recognition of constitutional equal protection for formerly marginalized members of society, who respond with the old racial, religious, sexual, and gender trigger words.  When called out for it, they simply whine, "Too PC."  Those who lobby the hardest for the right to use hate speech are in the same breath, claiming divine authority for doing so. I submit the late Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church as examples.

        While there are certainly valid examples of some on the far end of the spectrum bending over backwards to find fault in the actions of others, actually overreacting to innocent comments in some cases, the bulk of the "Too PC" sniveling comes from persons reacting badly to what they perceive as a loss of power, social status, racial and gender superiority. Their methods of combating these perceived losses, (events which for the most part actually strengthen us) has been socially institutionalized in America by many hurtful words and actions. Ted Nugent hates it that he can't call a black person a “n****r" from the stage. Pat Robertson would have loved to use the word "f****t" on the air. John McCain referred to his own wife as a "c**t" in front of a reporter. Westboro Baptist proclaims that "God Hates fags."

        Ask yourself; if a male candidate had made the same claim as Elizabeth Warren, would we even know of it today? Would an opponent deride him as "Geronimo" and make ludicrous and disrespectful attempts at war whoops?  "Too PC" or just a request for a  little respect?

        If an individual knows that their behavior or speech is hurtful, but does it anyway, we have a term for that. "Inconsiderate asshole."

        If there was a God who actually had the attributes ascribed to her by Jesus, I have to believe she would be waaaay "too PC" for the horde of social Neanderthals who bitch about equal rights and equal courtesy for all Americans.           

On Patriotism

                                       On Patriotism

07/06/2023

As we have again commemorated the Fourth of July, through the year, Flag day, Memorial day, Pearl Harbor day, etc, it seems to me that one word is used to varying ends over and over, to the point that its meaning sometimes becomes so muddied that an English language learner might well wonder exactly what is meant by its use. That word is "Patriotism."

I'm not in any way referring to responding to, or being prepared to respond to, acts of aggression against the nation by those with hostile intent. There was a real threat in World War II, which we waited too long to address in Europe but were forced to confront in the Pacific and then in Europe. That waiting was a result of American disgust over the 20 million death toll of World War I. Nor am I minimizing the realities of threats that the Soviet Union presented in the last half of the 20th century. I'm not even referring to missiles in Cuba. I am however referring to actions taken by politicians to garner public approval under the flag of "patriotism" when there is little of it in the legislators themselves in many cases - or as someone famously said, "The fat old men sending the fine young ones out to die."



Admittedly, this is a word which is incredibly subjective in nature at best. That said, there is also, and more so now than any time since the McCarthy era, a huge partisan divide over that meaning. In looking for a meaning I could live with, I went to history, since it's what I do. So here, in no particular order are a couple of definitions I consider reasonable and on point for "patriotism"

" My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth." - Abraham Lincoln.

This, of course, from the first Republican President, who would be chagrined, I think, to see what has become of those who identify as Republican. The "last best hope" to which Lincoln alludes is defined numerous places in his own words and generally includes concepts such as rights for all citizens, adherence to the Bill of Rights, and excludes any mention of religion beyond a Deity. What is interesting that "super patriots" such as Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum et al, frequently, in their self-serving public orations, refer to "In God we Trust" as if it is a foundation stone of the Constitution and the nation. In truth it was adopted in 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One”) in a move away from the Founder's discernable intent. It was a kneejerk reaction to what we were told was the threat of "global, Godless, Communism." The sad implication here is that apparently, although Socialism had existed as a political persuasion in the US since the early to mid-1800s, some in power had so little faith in the better natures of Capitalism and its appeal to Americans, that it was necessary to invoke the Deity as an ally.

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

I recently noted an internet ad headed by the bold words "Power for Patriots!" Who wouldn't be curious? It turns out it was an enterprising individual hawking his plans for homemade solar panels. What was interesting was his assertion that if the national power grid crashed that somehow only "patriots" who bought his information (by the way, readily available elsewhere on the "net" for free!) would be able to have electricity. Really? I don't know what proof of "patriotism" one was required to submit to obtain the information, but I nonetheless marveled at the idea.

Of course, Washington, who tried so desperately to minimize any sense of "partisanship" (and failed, in the final analysis, although his farewell address warned of its negative aspects) was already beset by the pissing match between Adams/Hamilton and Jefferson, which resulted, among other things in Adams and Jefferson sulking and refusing to speak to one another for 8 years. Earlier, in 1793, Jefferson had resigned as SecState because of Hamilton's access to Washington's ear on matters related to finance and the "shape" of the new republic. Would anyone call any of those three "unpatriotic?" Some today undoubtedly would, more from ignorance than discernment.

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about;" and this gem, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Sam Clemens was an anti-imperialist and had "minimized" his Civil War involvement to several weeks, after which he went west. He later described the war as: “A blot on our history, but not as great a blot as the buying and selling of Negro souls.” Regardless of how he avoided the War, Clemens, writing as Mark Twain, staunchly reserved his approval of war for defense of the home and hearth. While McKinley was exhorting American jingoism and Patriotic zeal in the Philippines, Twain was holding up the actions of US Soldiers in the slaughter of women and children to the light of a free press.

Faced with the evidence of mass exterminations, he wrote: "General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been, 'Kill or capture those savages.' (those 'savages' were Filipinos who thought they should not be a colony of the US) Apparently our little army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it had been for eight years in our army out there--the taste of Christian butchers."

Subsequent investigation and the testimony of enlisted men involved would reveal water boarding and the mass shootings of women and children. My Lai, in Vietnam wasn't the first and neither was the Moro massacre which Twain describes, since the US Army had honed its genocidal skills at Wounded Knee 25 years earlier and, in truth, as early as 1637, when fine upstanding Christian English from Plymouth and their Indian allies all but erased the Mashantucket Pequots as a tribal group in the Mystic Massacre. They, also, probably told themselves it was their "patriotic duty", but it was really just about controlling the wampum trade.

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" - Albert Einstein

We are exposed, almost every day, to those who express their worship of those who are "Fighting for our freedom." I am conflicted by that concept, since I unequivocally support the safety, welfare and safe return of any and all US servicemen and women. Having said that, we must examine the reality of the statement, so freely expressed and apparently rarely analyzed.

Plainly stated, there are no Americans alive today who are “freer” than they would be if we had never sent any US troops to Iraq. In contrast, there are many families who mourn children killed under the guise of "fighting for our freedom." This is not in any sense an indictment of strong national defense. My 26 years in the Submarine Force during the Cold war, and the continued efforts of those in all the services who keep us prepared to defend ourselves are categorically different from the expeditionary forces of volunteers ("mercenaries?") who excitedly go to hostile areas, antagonize persons of other faiths and nationalities and come home, themselves frequently damaged, both externally and in invisible ways. The Middle East isn’t the first such disaster, but we apparently failed to learn the lesson of Viet Nam.

In that instance, we had a President, Harry Truman, a good man who, when begged by Ho Chi Minh not to let the French reestablish their "Indo-Chinese" colony, was politically unable to do so because of the perceived response to allowing a "communist" government in Southeast Asia. We were moving into the era of the "domino theory" and all Communists were seen as merely clones of Lenin, Stalin or Mao, neither of which description fit Ho to any degree. He was, first and foremost, a nationalist, who, disliked the Chinese as much or more than the US did at the time. This mistake cost millions of lives, 60,000 American and another 75,000 disabled veterans. For what? Today Vietnam is united under their version of Communism and both they and the China we "feared" are major US trading partners.

Finally, since I am sure some readers will take issue with my opinion, take a moment to read these last two quotes from two of America's greatest generals, one a Republican President.

"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living." - Omar Bradley

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

But all too often, and as we sometimes saw it expressed by the previous administration, and as Samuel Johnson famously pointed out:

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

I prefer this one: “Patriotism inspires our local police to patrol the streets every day, maintaining law and order in our communities. Teachers see hope for America in the children they work so hard to educate. In times of crisis, patriotism unites us. We put our differences aside to help our countrymen in need.”

Would that it were ever so.

On Privatization

07/01/2023

We hear a lot these days about the (potential) benefits of Privatization of (name it) in a slew of areas. While there is no “one size fits all” definitive answer regarding these benefits, one thing becomes clear in the literature, that being that the point of view of the writer, rather than data, often determines the conclusion. This is evident in the wildly divergent natterings of ultra-leftists like Noam Chomsky and radically conservative writers such as Michelle Malkin. Neither, presumably, seems able to meld either their philosophies or opinions with the well being of the body politic in the balance.

        I said all that to say this. Privatization without adequate legal and specific oversight has the potential for several ills, moral, personal and national.

        I listed moral first, because it’s so easy to address. Two words “Blackwater Security.”  The following is self-explanatory, excerpted from a 2007 article by Peter Singer, a senior fellow with the non-profit (and centrist) New America think tank.

        “On Sept. 16, 2007, a convoy of Blackwater contractors guarding State Department employees entered a crowded square near the Mansour district in Baghdad, Iraq. Employees from the firm would later claim they were attacked by gunmen and responded within the rules of engagement, fighting their way out of the square after one of their vehicles was disabled. Iraqi police and witnesses instead report that the contractors opened fire first, shooting at a small car driven by a couple with their child that did not get out of the convoy’s way as traffic slowed. At some point in the 20-minute gunfight, Iraqi police and army forces stationed in watchtowers above the square also began firing. Other Iraqi security forces and Blackwater quick-reaction forces soon reportedly joined the battle. There are also reports that one Blackwater employee may even have pointed his weapon at his fellow contractors, in an effort to get them to cease firing.”   

    Consider that a moment ……. The only thing agreed upon is the consequences: After a reported 20 Iraqi civilians were killed by operatives paid by the US but not under US military control. Despite its mission of guarding U.S. officials in Iraq, Blackwater had no license with the Iraqi government. Secondly, the murky legal status of the contractors meant they might even be exempt from Iraqi law. The Blackwater mess roiled Capitol Hill and shined light on the many questions surrounding the legal status, management, oversight and accountability of the private military force in Iraq, which numbered more than 16,000 — at least as many as the total number of uniformed American forces there. The debate heated up again in hearings by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The problem is, some of the most critical questions went unasked.  

        When we evaluate the facts, the use of private military contractors appears to have harmed the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. mission in Iraq, going against our best doctrine and undermining critical efforts of our troops. Instead, the massive outsourcing of military operations has created a dependency on private firms like Blackwater that has given rise to dangerous vulnerabilities.

        Secondly, consider the consequences possible for many ordinary citizens if, for example, Bush 43 then, or Paul Ryan (later) or even Trump (who spoke of eliminating SS payroll taxes) had succeeded in privatizing Social Security. Without any actual details of what such a plan might look like there are multiple scenarios. The most common one proposed would be entirely handing off Social Security to Wall Street. This would eliminate Social Security taxes and require instead employees to contribute to their private retirement account. This is a zero-sum condition for the employee, who sees the smaller paycheck either way. This also assumes that every such employee will either 1) Be financially savvy enough to personally handle their own investment portfolio or 2) Select a financial advisor who, like Caesar’s wife, is “above reproach.”

        Both options are fraught with “what ifs?”  As a personal example: My wife was an employee of a major hospital corporation which offered employees a retirement 401K “ish” plan in which the employee had a wide range of options for managing their personal contributions. The company even offered a generous 25% matching for contributions. The new system was incepted in 2004 and we immediately began participation (I mean, who doesn’t like depositing 4 dollars and getting $1 more “free?”) The plan offered a wide range of Mutual funds and a very low interest money market account. The money market account’s return was actually less than Social Security for the same amount!

        After consideration and discussion (I have a business master’s degree and was certified to teach economics) we opted for a fairly conservative family of funds, and were pleasantly rewarded with slow, but steady growth. At this time, however, since all fund performance data was available to participants, I noted that one sector was generating in excess of 25% annual return on investment!  We talked and considered, thankfully keeping contributions where they were. This scenario is analogous to the proposed privatization scheme….with one exception: whereas we were skeptical about the sustainability of such a high ROA, many would simply have chosen to put their retirement funds lock stock and barrel into this “too good to be true” investment.

        Now, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, “For the rest of the story.”  The high return fund in question was the Bear-Stearns Real Estate Trust. Even without specific information available to those limned in “The Big Short” it just seemed “too good to be true.”  And it was. In January 2004, the trust was at $78 per share, and the “bundling” of high risk mortgages masquerading as cash had just started, Bear-Stearns leading the way. At this point remember, even a financial advisor more interested in the percentage of return he would earn from managing privatized accounts might well have put clients into this fund also. By January 2006, (Wife still working, both still watching) the fund was at $170/share. Still seemed odd, we stood pat. In April 2008, the excreta entered the ventilation, and leading the crash of the housing bubble were our old friends, Bear-Stearns. Share prices (if they could have sold any) fell below $5/share. For the math impaired here’s an example.

        Assuming an employee really socking it away had managed to amass shares worth, in January 2006, $500,000, and planned to retire in January 2008 using the money for (whatever, buy retirement home, a boat, you name it). When the dust settled in early 2008, and the retiree was forced to withdraw funds, being no longer employed, the half a mil would have looked more like $14,000. At the same period, regardless of how we critique it, Social Security recipients continued receiving their calculated amount. And, by the way, the trust was dissolved, Bear- Stearns sold and no one recovered jack shit! 

        Privatization would have been absolutely disastrous for many Americans. 

        Finally, These same conditions, as anyone alive and breathing in 2008 should remember, were of national consequence as well as individual. Why? Because, unlike what the Trump administration would have liked like us to believe, regulation of financial markets in the public interest isn’t a “bad thing”, neither are reasonable asset requirements required for loans, private or corporate.  The Housing Bubble collapse triggered the Great Recessions which, 5 or 6 years later, we finally climbed out of. Regardless of whining from Wall Street and commercial banks, the Obama era Dodd-Frank bill was aimed at preventing the recurrence of such a fiasco. So, ask yourself why the Trump administration was seemingly dead set on loosening such consumer safeguards it provided. Look no further that Steve Mnuchin, SecTreasury. Former job description – CEO of Goldman-Sachs, yet one more corporate entity severely wounded by the collapse. P.S. Trump’s eventual weakening of Dodd-Frank included severely weakening
 the “Volker Rule”, which limited the ways, and provided for oversight regarding how, commercial banks could invest client’s deposit funds. Remember the Silicon Valley Bank collapse? The emasculated Volker rule’s first casualty.

Wouldn’t you think that having had this happen once would be a red flag to the rest of the industry? You wouldn’t if you knew that, as bad as the Recession was for the average American, most high officials of the investment banks which led the hogs to the “bad mortgage” trough came through perhaps a bit poorer, but largely unscathed. It is reminiscent of a scene in Mel Brooks’ film History of The World, Part I. Set in the Roman Senate, a discussion occurs regarding conditions in Rome, and one individual asks, “What about the poor?” To which after a momentary pause, they reply, with one voice, “F*** the poor!” One can almost see Trump in a toga.

        Putting that amount of money (Social Security sized amounts) in private hands might well lead to simply too much temptation and too little oversight. What does that look like?

        Let’s finish with a brief story about Angelo Mozilo. Who? Mozilo, the perpetually over-tanned (sound familiar?) son of a butcher from the Bronx, co-founded Countrywide Financial in 1969. He built it into an unstoppable mortgage machine that made it easy — evidently too easy — for millions to own a home. (note, I actually know persons who attempt to shift the blame for bad loans onto the Clinton administration for encouraging banks to lend to qualified borrowers instead of racially profiling, aka “redlining,” as was not uncommon well into the 1990s.)   

        Under Mozilo, Countrywide pumped out thousands of complex mortgages to people who couldn't afford them — and often didn't understand them. These would be - you know-  those same, often economically unsophisticated, folks whose life savings Bush 43 or Paul Ryan wanted to entrust to guys like Mozilo?  One product, an adjustable-rate mortgage known as a pay-option ARM, gave borrowers the option of making small payments in some months, or even skipping some payments altogether. Who wouldn’t love that, huh? Many borrowers ended up owing more than their houses were worth, resulting in countless foreclosures. The borrowers simply did not understand the risks involved with the mortgages and Countrywide simply did not tell them. Of course, as it turns out, Countrywide didn't worry much about what happened after the mortgage was signed because it packaged most of the loans together and shipped them off to Wall Street, a process known as securitization. Again, under-regulated, bundles such these, many of which included toxic mortgage loans were certified by rating organizations such as Moody’s or Dunn and Bradstreet, in competition for business, as AA or even AAA when what they deserved was a C or D rating at most. (Read “The Big Short”).

        Countrywide sold or securitized 87% of the $1.5 trillion in mortgages it originated between 2002 and 2005, according to the final report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bipartisan federal committee charged with investigating the causes of the meltdown. "Ambition and arrogance made Countrywide offer to the market a product that was inferior," said Jonathan Adams, senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. "They did the market a terrible service."

    Missing from this statement is the fact that "The Market" failed to do due diligence in assuring the legitimacy of these artificially inflated blocs of shady mortgages as investment grade instruments (they weren't), safe for investment by public or private retirement funds. Note the willingness to blame the, admittedly culpable mortgage brokers but not the millionaires running the commercial banks whose greed and lack of oversight was contributory to the collapse.  

        So, also think about this the next time someone suggests that private does it better. One last shot. For all the flak Kevin McCarthy and others of the GOP threw, and still throw, at Medicare, both the Kaiser foundation and Johns Hopkins researchers have found  that, far from inefficient, Medicare does more with less than comparable services from private healthcare carriers. I’m just sayin’. The actual numbers? Medicare overall admin costs: in the 2 to 5% range. Medicare Advantage Plans and other private insurers are in the 17 to 18% range! Lest one think this is a fluke, Britain’s NHS also runs a 2% annual admin cost. Yeah, single payer is more efficient!