Perhaps I am reading too much... my 2014 brain dump

I have an app on my iPhone, iPad and computer called Pocket.  It allows you to save articles you would like to read later and have them show up on any of your devices.  As it turns out, the good folks at Pocket keep track of how much you read.  Last week, they sent me an email telling me that I have read over 929,000 words this year, the equivalent of 20 books.  Of course, that doesn’t include the other dozen books, newspapers or magazines that I read which might add another half mil or so.  Conservatively, let’s put the total at a million.

So, what have I learned from all this?  First, there are two kinds of birdbrains running our government in Washington:  Republicans and Democrats.  If you buy into the dogma of either party, you’re not getting any truth.  Second, the media can’t be counted on to help you figure things out.  They don’t report the truth.  They report what people say.  There’s a difference.

Maybe you already know that.  You didn’t need to read a million words to figure it out.  If that’s the case, you can stop reading right here and go play another game of Candy Crush or Game of War.

For the rest of you…

The economy

Presidents take too much credit for a good economy and get too much blame for bad ones.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to create economic growth; however, GDP growth during the Bush years equaled the growth in our national debt.  Net zero!

That said, the Bush tax cuts didn’t cause the financial crisis, the causes of which can be traced to the 60’s.  Presidents and Congresses of both parties as well as multiple Fed Chairmen precipitated the crisis.

The recent spurt in GDP growth has not been caused by the Obama stimulus or any other policies of his administration.  Virtually all the jobs created since 2009 were created by the energy boom as can easily be seen by reviewing this graph using data from the St. Louis Fed:

Absent the energy boom, the US economy would look much like Europe’s.  All of which adds perspective to the recent ban on fracking by the governor of my home state of New York, a state that has been losing jobs and population to the Sunbelt due to the blue state folly of overregulation, high taxes and debt.

Climate Change

The debate over global warming is fueled more by passion than science.  Reportedly 97% of climatologists have concluded that climate change will cause vast expanses of the civilized world will be covered by water within 100 years.  My reading of the definitive report by the UN sponsored International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lends some doubt on those projections as the IPCC uses the adjective “likely” or “very likely” when describing their projections.  Science is never certain.  My correspondence with scientists suggest that nothing as complex as the climate can be predicted with any degree of certainty 100 years in the future.

That said, the result of burning fossil fuels is toxic.  Efforts to convert to renewable energy are beginning to bear fruit and are cost effective. Government investments (like venture capital investments) have resulted in some high profile business failures.  However, subsidies for renewable energy have had the desired result.  And, the EPA state-by-state plan for conversion to renewables by 2030 is well considered and appears to be economically viable.  The first phase of this plan involves a substantial conversion of coal-fueled power plants to natural gas by 2020.  (See fracking above.)

To get from here to there, we need to understand that we will continue to burn fossil fuels for decades.  Converting to lower emission energy sources (such as coal to natural gas) will diminish the damage during the transition.  There is a web of hundreds of pipelines transporting oil and natural gas around the US and Canada.  If we fail to support the addition of new pipelines, not only are we adding an economic burden but also we are forcing producers to transport the stuff less safely by rail.

Institutions from Yale to MIT have analyzed the risks of fracking.  Most of the press reports linking fracking to damage to the water supply and earthquakes are erroneous.  But, the press is in the thrall of an unyielding environmental lobby.  So, the public believes that fracking is more dangerous than it really is.

Income inequality

French economist Thomas Piketty made a splash this year with an extensively researched book, Capital in the 21^st Century, which concluded that income inequality was the result of returns on capital exceeding return on labor.  So, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  This conclusion should surprise no one.  Why would anyone invest capital if they would not get a superior return?

Yet, the book fed the confirmation bias of liberals who think that government should redistribute income and that income inequality is a serious problem in the US.  A parallel study done at Cornell took a different view.  Piketty’s analysis failed to take into account the impact of government benefits.  When considering that impact, the bottom quintile of earners in the US experienced a 33% increase in income from 1979 to present rather than the 31% decrease reported by Piketty.

We could continue to increase those benefits and increase the minimum wage and we would still not make a dent in the real problem.  At the core of our social problems are inner city communities and families that are broken and dysfunctional.  The real fix – if there is one – is improved education.  In my hometown of Rochester, only 5% of high school graduates are ready for college or careers – last in the country.  School choice is the only answer.  I would ask why our high school options shouldn’t look like our college options.  Some public, some private…  some affordable, some not.  Ultimately parents play a large role in selecting a college for their children based upon income and other factors.  Why not the same for grammar school and high school?

Healthcare

The West achieved global leadership, in part, because of advances in healthcare during the 19^th Century.  Maintaining a healthy, working middle class is essential to our security and financial sustainability.  The Affordable Care Act does little to address an underlying cost structure that, combined with demographics, will continue to increase the share of GDP absorbed by healthcare.  In a recent article by Pascal Emmanuel Gobry titled “What Americans Won’t Learn About Healthcare”, the author suggests that Singapore’s system might serve as the best straw man for real reform in the US.

Looking forward

There is always a lot of hand-wringing and sniping during periods of economic malaise.  Perhaps we’ll catch a break from that starting next year.

I expect that we will see the beginning of wage increases that will affect the middle class positively and the hand-wringing will abate.  The demand for labor will be driven by the return of manufacturing to our shores.  The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) predicts that the US will become the least expensive place among industrialized nations to produce manufactured goods within a few years due to lower energy costs, more flexible labor laws and the world’s most efficient transportation system.  BCG projects that China’s costs will be 95% of the US – insufficient to motivate companies to locate new factories there. 

The hitch is that new factories will not employ low skilled labor in large numbers.  The modern factory is highly automated and those who work there will need to have the math skills to operate sophisticated machinery. 

Politics in DC

I tend to read more about policy than politics.  So, I am not confident about my insights into our electoral prospects.

The recent national election has pundits leaving Democrats for dead.  But, this has happened many times before.  In a brief blog post, Walter Russell Mead of the American Interest provides several examples of broad electoral victories that were reversed by a fickle public within 2 to 4 years and provides an interesting perspective on why we keep swinging from left to right and back again.

For my part, I see one very troubling element that undermines our national charter.

The Religious Right has been a key element of the Republican voting bloc since Ronald Reagan first shook hands with Ralph Reed.  In my view, their views are contrary to the libertarian philosophy otherwise espoused by the party.  Freedom is freedom.  A small minority of Americans shouldn’t be able to impose their moral values on the majority.  It is noteworthy that religious conservatives have not achieved their goals despite electing conservative presidents in 5 of the last 9 elections.

The country is becoming more urban and more liberal.  The US map shown to us by the media after each election with Republican counties colored in red and Democrats in blue presents a very red picture.  But, electoral votes aren’t allocated by acreage. Over 80% of voters now live in urban or suburban communities and those communities – including the big cities in conservative states like Georgia and Texas – overwhelming vote Democrat.

Social attitudes are becoming more liberal.  A majority supports both reproductive choice and same sex marriage.  If the Republican Party can’t find a way to nominate candidates who don’t pander to this element of the party, they will have a very difficult time winning the White House.

That’s it… it’s time to reformat the hard drive and start reading new stuff in 2015.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Finding Buddha on the Eve of Christmas

It’s been a tough year for our family.  In April, I unexpectedly lost a brother (A Sibling Rival, Now Gone).  Then, my wife lost a brother a few days before he was expected for a Thanksgiving feast.  On the heels of the holiday, an old and very close friend told us of the death of his daughter (just a few years after he lost his son). 

It has all left me feeling profoundly sad and looking for answers.  I don’t understand why good people are meant to endure these losses.  What does it mean?

After my brother died, a mutual friend sent me a book, Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander.  A neurosurgeon by trade, Dr. Alexander tells the story of his near death experience (NDE).  It’s a remarkable book, largely because the author is a scientist and a non-believer.  He had always thought of NDE’s as the result of hallucination.  But his personal experience and a review of the medical evidence convince him otherwise.  There is a heaven, he concludes.

The book was profound.  However, I find no answers there.

My surviving brother reads his Bible daily.  He offers Matthew (5:3): “blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted”.  He offers the story of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead. 

Others offer the story of David who, upon the death of his son, “went into the house of the lord and worshipped”.  David’s acts demonstrate that he had given himself to the lord long before the death of his child.  Perhaps those who feel close to God are better able to cope than those who don’t.  Revelations (21:4) says “… God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away”.

Perhaps a renewal of my faith would enable me to find comfort when I endure these losses.  Yet, to me, it feels too much like buying an insurance policy. 

An Irish blessing – more earthly in its expression – reminds us we “do not walk alone”.  It starts…

May you see God’s light on the path ahead…

and ends with the wish that…

… God give you...

For every storm, a rainbow,

For every tear, a smile,

For every care, a promise,

And a blessing in each trial.

For every problem life sends,

A faithful friend to share,

For every sigh, a sweet song,

And an answer for each prayer.

Wonderfully phrased, as are all Irish blessings.  But, again, it begins and ends with faith in God as a source of comfort while grieving.

Setting aside the almighty, a very matter-of-fact Tennyson presents a bleak picture in his poem, “All Things Will Die”.  It ends with the stanza…

The stream will cease to flow;
The wind will cease to blow;
The clouds will cease to fleet;
The heart will cease to beat;
For all things must die.
All things must die.

That’s certainly true but it offers neither meaning nor answers. 

A Buddhist parable tells of a mother, having lost her son, seeking a teacher who might restore her son’s life.  The teacher tells her that he has a cure and sends her for some mustard seed.  However, she must retrieve the mustard seed from a house where no one has lost a son, a husband or parent.

Naturally, she is unable to find such a household.  “The living are few, but the dead are many,” one tells her.

The experience clears her mind and helps her find her resolve.  All things are impermanent, she learns.  

Another such parable ends with the reminder that “Those who have a hundred dear ones, have a hundred sorrows. … Those who have no dear one, for them there is no sorrow. These, I declare, are the griefless ones, free from human passion, without despair.”

For some reason, I find some comfort in these parables.  They are told from the perspective of human experience.  Going door-to-door, speaking with everyone in your community, finding perspective in the experience of others is something I can relate to.

Sociologist and author Brene Brown tells us…

“Embracing our vulnerabilities is risky but not nearly as dangerous as giving up on love and belonging and joy—the experiences that make us the most vulnerable. Only when we are brave enough to explore the darkness will we discover the infinite power of our light.” 

From the depths of sorrow, we must find it in ourselves to recover from grief. 

It requires courage. 

It requires that we reconnect with those who survive. 

It requires that we remember that we are worthy of love.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or, do they?

The Federal Register

Now that Thanksgiving is past and the furor in Ferguson has calmed down a bit, Americans can get back to what we do best:  argue about politics.

When last we heard, the big deal in Washington was the President’s executive actions on immigration policy.  Republicans cried fowl!  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said it most concisely.  “The president is endangering our entire constitutional order,” he avers.

Democrats respond by pointing out that Republican presidents have done the same thing. 

It sounds a lot like playground logic…

…. Mom, Barack broke the rules!

….  Yeah, Mom, but so did Ronnie and George.

I know what my Mom (or yours) would say:  “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

One of the adults in Congress expressed a more balanced view.  Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), referring to the House of Representatives controlled by his own party, said on CNN: "Shame on us as Republicans for having a body that cannot generate a solution to an issue" involving national security as well as cultural and economic considerations.

But, were the President’s actions legal?

I would guess that what he has outlined is legal.  The President didn’t wake up the day after Election Day and decide to do this.  I would bet his legal staff burned the midnight oil for months identifying what they thought he could and couldn’t get away with.  Moreover, his apologists are right about Presidents and executive orders.  The website fivethirtyeight.com published a chart of executive orders going back to George Washington.  It’s an interesting graphic showing a peak in the number of executive orders during the FDR administration.

I think there’s actually a larger question: How did it get this way?  How can a President, in effect, create laws through executive action?  Isn’t that the role of Congress?  Isn’t that the Constitutional order (as Senator Sessions put it)?

First, a bit of history.  Two separate events provide the basis for an expansion of executive powers.  In 1935, the Supreme Court decided Humphrey’s executor v. United States in favor of the plaintiff.  The decision rendered a President powerless to fire a duly appointed commissioner (in this case, a commissioner of the FTC).  Unlike cabinet departments, Congress appoints commissioners to administrative bodies that are an extension of their legislative power.  The FCC and the FTC are examples. 

The addition of so many commissions, agencies and cabinet departments during the Roosevelt administration led to the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of1946.  This law allows government bureaucrats to write procedures that turn the vague laws passed by Congress into rules and regulations.

These legal events – which most people have never heard of – have led to administrative mission creep, extraordinary complexity and lack of accountability in the federal bureaucracy. 

“So what?” you might say.  We all know how unresponsive and incompetent government bureaucracies are.  How does that relate to the current hoo-haw over immigration?

The sheer size of the federal government leads to what economists call “rational ignorance”.  The only people who read the Federal Record to see what new rules are being written are industry lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to influence the outcomes in their favor.  In these cases, they are likely to get their way since if no one else knows, no one will object.

Who knows what rules have been written to enforce immigration laws?  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports through the Department of Homeland Security to the President.  If DHS bureaucrats have written the rules, they can re-write the rules.

Is it any surprise that anti-government Republicans have found a following? 

WHO WILL LEAD?

Orphan Black, Margaret Atwood and a Woman's Right to Choose

Tatiana Maslany as Orphan Black

From time to time, one of my loyal readers tells me I should write a book.  In my healthy fantasy life, I actually write one.  In real life, I don’t have an outline or even a paragraph.

We are great fans of the BBC TV series Orphan Black. In a near future world, a young woman discovers she is a clone and has 6, or is it 8, clone-sisters roaming the planet.  The evil mega-corporation that invented them has a patent on their DNA and seeks to control the outcomes of their reproductive lives.  It’s terrifying for the clones, as you can imagine.

I am a fan of novels that extrapolate social trends into a near future world.  Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood have demonstrated mastery of the genre and have written some of the most fascinating books of the 20^th Century. 

In my head, my novel would focus on a near-future world in which women are rounded up and forced to give birth through cesarean section to satisfy the moral code of the men that run society.  It would be terrifying. 

Then, my wife sent me an op-ed piece from the New York Times.  As it turns out, my would-be novel would not be a work of fiction.  Women are being rounded up today and being forced to give birth through cesarean section to satisfy the moral code of the men that run society.  It’s terrifying.

Somehow, laws that purportedly intend to preserve the right to life are being used to deprive women of their freedom – not of choice – I mean their physical freedom.  They are being jailed.

The most egregious example might be that of a pregnant, terminally ill woman in Washington, DC who was forced by a judge to undergo a cesarean section in spite of the risk to her life.  Neither she nor the baby survived the procedure.

A one time, off-the-wall example?  No, it’s not.  A pregnant Iowa woman who fell down a flight of stairs was arrested for attempted fetal homicide.  I recall that my ex-wife tripped and fell on our lawn when she was very pregnant.  I wonder…  If that happened today, would she be arrested?  (The twins are doing fine, BTW.)

A Louisiana woman was locked up on manslaughter charges when she showed up in a hospital with vaginal bleeding. It turns out she was having a miscarriage.  She spent a year in jail before it all got straightened out.

The authors of the Times article have published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 such cases.  More than half of the incidents occurred in the South. Eighty-six percent of the women were charged with a crime – 74% with a felony.

Margaret Atwood’s award winning book, The Handmaid’s Tale (later made into a movie starring Natasha Richardson in the title role), foretold a society where most women were made barren by pollution.  Those who could reproduce were forced into sexual slavery as “handmaids” who would give birth on behalf of wealthy couples.  The culture envisioned by Atwood was a mix of Old Testament dogma and misogyny.  It was terrifying.

Has the near future envisioned in Atwood’s novel arrived?

There is an ongoing effort in many states to define the “personhood” of a fetus as having the same rights as a child that has been born or an adult who has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This initiative is part of the political campaign to criminalize abortion.

The women who are being arrested and forced into a medical procedure they don’t want are not women choosing an abortion.  Yet, they are subject to a loss of their freedom at the hands of people who pretend to stand for liberty and a free society.

That most of the people involved in the decision to deprive these women of their freedom are men is no coincidence, in my opinion.  Still, I wonder how the legislators who make these laws, the sheriffs who arrest these women  or the judges who make these decisions would react if the woman in question was their own daughter.  Would they treat someone they love in the same way?

I doubt it.

WHO WILL LEAD?