A different view of the healthcare debate… The poll… What I’m reading

In his great book “Civilization: The West and the Rest,” historian Niall Ferguson identifies what he calls 6 killer apps that made western civilization the preeminent system of government and economics.  Number four on the list is Medicine.  The seeds of modern medical science, sown in 19^thCentury Europe, led to a “major improvement in health and life expectancy.”  Now as then, we need a healthy population to ensure a stable society and a productive economy.  Given our federal fiscal disaster, the future of the US depends in large part on how much healthcare we want and how we pay for it.  

Despite my libertarian leanings, I love Medicare.  And I worry that it will go broke before I draw my last breath.  We are already in the midst of a fiscal crisis about which neither political party seems to care.  Many economists predict another Great Depression unless we tend to it. So, there are a few principles that should guide us in developing a system that extends high quality healthcare to all and does so cost effectively.

First, the government should provide a social safety net.  Many Republicans forget it was conservative economist Friedrich Hayek who coined the term “safety net.”  In his master work “The Road to Serfdom,” he wrote: “There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all… Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist… in providing for… common hazards of life against which… few individuals can make adequate provision… The case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”  That’s why the expansion of Medicaid was the most important element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Making it available to middle-class families enabled them to make an informed choice about purchasing private insurance or sticking with a government program.  

Second, any new system must address the underlying cost structure.  The highly regulated, high cost Fee-for-Service system we have today must be overhauled.  The ACA proposed Accountable Care Organizations that would be compensated on the basis of medical outcomes.  Absent a mandate, the experiment unfortunately fizzled out.  

Those who favor Medicare for All (M4A) don’t seem to care about cost.  Their proposal would pay for additional coverage with a tax on the wealthy. The US has the most progressive tax code in the industrialized world.  The top 20% pay over 88% of income taxes. In Europe, a large part of government’s budget is covered by a Value Added Tax (VAT), usually adding about 20% or more to the price of goods purchased.  Would our so-called progressive politicians propose a regressive tax like the VAT to pay for M4A?  I’d like to see them try. 

Third, there must be room for competitive enterprises in the system.  Capitalist enterprises have innovated new treatment protocols, extraordinary medical devices and amazing pharmaceuticals.  Were it not for competition, we wouldn’t have laparoscopy, implanted defibrillators or ACE inhibitors.  Scandinavian countries providing free healthcare have no significant pharmaceutical or medical device industries.  They keep costs low by negotiating lower drug prices, for example, but rely on innovations from other countries. 

And, lastly, everyone should have some skin in the game.  I recently pointed to Singapore’s system as an example where consumers spend their own money first in buying healthcare services. Providers respond to competitive pressure from consumers to keep prices low. 

How would an alternative system look?  We can’t be sure.  There are too many entrenched interests making too much money for politicians to mount the courage to overthrow the current paradigm.  I would point to one example to give you an idea how a creative approach could improve outcomes. In France, the hospital comes to you.  Mobil advanced life support units, staffed by doctors and nurses, back up first responders. The result is better medical outcomes because people promptly get advanced treatment at home and lower cost because fewer patients go to the hospital.  Could you see that happening here?

I’m sure you’re waiting for me to tell you how we should design this new system.  But, I can’t!  I am not sure anyone can.  However, I believe that starting with a set of sound principles will lead to a better system than either M4A or the ACA.

WHO WILL LEAD?

The Poll

Recently I created a poll asking if you preferred longer essays like this one or the short takes I’ve been publishing since the beginning of the year.  Thank you to those of you who responded.  Unfortunately, you are deadlocked 50/50.  The poll is still open; so, if you haven’t voted, please do so by clicking HERE.  Thanks.

What I’m Reading

Sarah Lawrence College professor Samuel J. Abrams tells us the American Dream is alive and well in the 21^stCentury in his essay in the New York Times…  The Green New Deal proposed by Democrats will hurt working-class Americans most according to Brandon Weichert… Just finished a great book by Chris Voss, who developed the FBI’s hostage negotiating techniques.  It’s called “Never Split the Difference.”  Don’t think it’s only for business people negotiating deals. It’s a prescription for dealing with important people in your life too. 

I hate memes… I hate government regs… I hate taxes

 

I hate memes

A well-designed meme, like this one spotted on Facebook, resonates so well with so many people that it either forms the basis of new beliefs or confirms a bias.  Bankers are evil, the story goes.  They caused the financial crisis and screwed all of us. So, this meme will get shared by many. 

I see it in a larger context of people depending on others to protect them from their mistakes.  Sorry if you suffered during the financial crisis. So, did I.  So did many others.  But, when you sign up for a bank account, you sign an agreement to keep your account balance positive or pay an overdraft fee.  Giving you and anyone in your circumstances a break increases costs for the bank.  So, it’s reasonable to ask who should bear those costs.  Should it be the shareholders of the bank?  Before your amygdala prompts an immediate “yes,” consider that, if you own shares in a mutual fund, you and your mutual shareholders probably own stock in banks.

But if not the shareholders, then who?  Well, those costs will be passed on to other customers in some way – perhaps in higher ATM fees or higher interest rates.  No one will know exactly except the bank’s senior officers.  But, trust me, someone will pay.

And, so, here we are. 

People get themselves into bad situations and sometimes make mistakes.  That’s life. But who should take responsibility for those mistakes other than those who made them?

I hate government regs

It’s fair to point out that banks have raised fees in the years since the financial crisis.  Under pressure to reduce risky lending and strengthen their balance sheets, they sought new ways to generate revenue.  Our government has played a huge role in creating this unintended consequence and the crisis itself.  The Clinton administration liberalized the way in which the main providers of mortgage financing – FNMA and GNMA –could raise capital. In turn, those quasi-government institutions expanding their portfolios of mortgage bonds.  The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates during the Bush administration and GWB ran for reelection in 2004 promoting the highest rate of home ownership in our history.  We all know what happened next.  

In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank act which directed government regulators to create rules that discourage risky lending and required banks to increase the amount of capital they hold to protect against losses. Seems reasonable, right?  But it wasn’t the big banks at the heart of the crisis of that suffered under this new regime.  It was community banks, those more connected to their customers and community, who were seriously challenged to comply.  The result is that many sold out to larger competitors, creating more big banks.  

The recently announced acquisition of SunTrust Bank by BB&T is the most visible of these events. When concluded, the merged entity will be America’s sixth largest bank.  The merger is driven by the need to drive down costs in order to retain more capital, invest in new technology and comply with Dodd-Frank’s regulations. Ironically, one of Dodd-Frank’s architects, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has criticized the merger because it will create another “too big to fail” bank.  But it’s the conditions imposed by the law that are driving the consolidation of the banking industry.  

No one should be surprised by this. Sen. Warren seems to live in a parallel universe where what’s right is wrong and vice versa. 

I hate taxes

In the latest episode of The Blue State Follies, there’s a kerfuffle in Albany over a shortfall in tax revenues.  That’s bad news for New Yorkers as the legislature begins to develop the state budget. Last November’s election turned complete control of the state legislature over to Democrats.  So, what do you suppose their reaction to this bad news might have been?  Wait for it… Yes, that’s right!  Let’s raise taxes.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.  The US Census Bureau has reported that New York’s population loss has exceeded that of any other state. During the campaign season – while running for a reelection that matched his father’s three terms as governor – Andrew Cuomo informed us that New York was losing population not because of high taxes and inhospitable business conditions but rather because of lousy weather.  As I sit here in upstate New York in February, it’s easy to agree with that assessment.  

To his credit, when his party cried out for higher taxes to close the gap in our state’s budget, he responded that he was concerned that people would move out of New York to avoid paying higher taxes. 

Wait!  What?

WHO WILL LEAD?

Crowdsourcing the news… Trump vs. Republicans… How you like it

Crowdsourcing the news

About the time we were to take off, Southwest Airlines made the announcement that the TSA had ordered the evacuation of our terminal at Orlando International Airport.  What happened next was surprisingly orderly. There was no panic or press of the crowd.  Everyone simply grabbed their stuff and headed to the tram that returned us to the main terminal.  We made new friends, exchanged cynical wisecracks and did as we were told without much fuss.  It took about an hour before we – thousands of us – were back in line to go through security again.  

Naturally, the bureaucracy did what it always does: give orders without telling us what happened or what to expect next.  Also, naturally, the crowd turned to their smartphones.  Rumors abounded.  There were gunshots.  There was a fire.  As it turned out, neither of those were true.  How do I know?  Well, first the Miami Herald posted a story with lots of gaps describing the possible suicide of a TSA employee who jumped from the balcony of the airport hotel. He hit the floor so hard that it sounded like a gun shot and everyone started running, including the TSA employees who were scanning passengers and luggage.

A more complete report was posted on the website Heavy.com.  Being careful to cite the source of each quote, they simply compiled a story from social media posts.  The first of them was used by both the Herald and Heavy.  It included a Tweet from Kindy Segovia who posted a picture of the mob including yours truly (that’s me in the black sweater below the N in Hudson News).  Everything worked out okay and we were on our way after a rescreening and a three- and-half-hour delay.  

I was struck by how a complete picture emerged whereby every social media post constituted pieces of a puzzle.  The Herald’s caution in quoting unknown sources yielded a less complete picture than Heavy.com who was careful to use quotation marks around what people had posted, misspellings included.  I was reminded of a scene from the movie “Absence of Malice,” in which Paul Newman’s character tells off a reporter played by Sally Field.  “You don’t print the truth,” he says.  “You print what people say.  There’s a difference.  The truth’s not that easy to come by.”

Trump vs. Republicans

I recall a wise quote from Cokie Roberts, daughter of two members of Congress and veteran pundit. “The only way to do business in Washington is ‘as usual’,” she averred.  In other words, disrupters beware.  You won’t know what happened to you until it’s already happened.

Was Donald Trump done before he started?  The common wisdom is that veteran Republicans rolled over and played along with the current resident of the White House.  They voted with him over 90% of the time.  Matthew Glassman, a Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute, takes a different view.  “In reality,” he says.  “Republican legislators have hidden their influence, purposefully disguising a weak president with little clout on Capitol Hill while also preserving party unity.”

His essay in the New York Times outlines the strategy: they have simply declined to take up his agenda. During the last Congress, there were no votes on the border wall, immigration policy or protectionist trade policies.  Wary of publicly stating their opposition and incurring the wrath of both him and his stooges at FOX News, they simply work against him by not acting.

On those matters requiring action, they have quietly dismissed his ideas.  Hence, he proposes cuts to non-defense spending and Congress delivers a budget that does the opposite.  It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change with Democrats in control of the House. 

How you like it

Regular readers will have noticed that I switched formats around the first of the year. Previously, I wrote long essays exploring ideas that interest me.  Lately, I’ve been writing shorter pieces that summarize my thoughts with less in-depth research. So, I’d like to know which format you prefer.  Please take a moment to answer this one-question survey: Click HERE.

WHO WILL LEAD?  

When he’s right, he’s wrong… No free lunch… Speaking of healthcare

 

When he’s right, he’s wrong

It’s easy to watch way President Trump behaves and conclude he’s wrong.  And, once you come to that conclusion often enough, it’s easy to conclude he’s wrong about everything.  Easy but also lazy. 

The president promised the abandoned blue-collar population constituting his base that he would reverse trade deficits.  That will never happen so long as the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy and so long as consumption rather than savings and investment drive our economy. 

But it’s fair to observe that Trump’s focus on China and its misbehavior has resonated beyond his base. China is stealing intellectual property from American companies.  China is using its comparative advantage in manufacturing to build cash reserves that serve its One Belt One Road initiative. They are building a regional navy to challenge U.S. sea power along critical trade routes through the S. China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.  They are challenging the sovereignty of our allies by claiming islands from them and building military facilities.  So, Trump is right to challenge China.

However, even when he’s right, he’s wrong.  The way to challenge China’s global position is to form a coalition to counter their moves. You don’t build a coalition by insulting the leaders of our traditional allies and threatening to undermine the global order.  What Trump has done, both in Europe and Asia, is position the U.S. as an unreliable partner. For example, he followed through on his campaign promise to pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  He wasn’t alone in his analysis of TPP, of course. Members of Congress and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (that font of economic wisdom) also criticized it. Ultimately, the popular pressure even got Hillary Clinton to join the chorus.  (Hillary might be the last globalist we’ll see on presidential ticket for a while.)

Here’s what the TPP would have done for the U.S.: (1) joined us in a trade pact with all the economic powers of Asia (constituting 40% of global GDP) save one – China, (2) improved our access to the markets of those nations by lowering tariffs and other trade barriers and (3) created closer bonds with our trade partners to isolate China.

Now, the remaining countries of the original TPP have formed their own pact without the U.S.  So, instead of buying American beef and soybeans, for example, they’ll buy from Canada and Australia.  American farmers and ranchers could have used the income during our Trumped up trade war with China.  

No free lunch

Ever notice that the only items in your household budget where inflation is out of control are those where there is a pile of government money available?  If you’re caught in the middle class squeeze, you know I’m talking about health insurance and college tuition.  So-called progressives have a solution: make it free.  Of course, nothing is truly free.  They’re really talking about socializing the cost of those items.

There’s a good argument to be made for government support of a healthy, well-educated middle class.  Unfortunately, government programs designed to help the middle class afford health insurance and college tuition seem to work like the carrot that the donkey can never reach.  It moves away as fast as one tries to reach it.  

I am generally supportive of government programs that are both means tested and based on merit.  However, the free lunch promised by politicians (now table stakes for Democrats running for president) doesn’t work for me.  Tell me how you’ll address the structure that is driving up costs, tell me the criteria to qualify for it and I’ll listen to your ideas.

Otherwise, you’re just making an ass of yourself.  

Speaking of healthcare

A common trope among Republican politicians addressing healthcare is to allow the free market to do its work.  I’ve wondered how that might look and have scanned the globe (Okay.  So, I just searched on Google) for a good example.  I haven’t been able to find one – no example of healthcare being provided in a free market in an industrialized country.  If you can find one, please let me know.  

I was, however, able to find a system that seems to work better than the rest:  Singapore!  Mandatory health savings accounts (Medisave) are the backbone of the system.  Everyone pays a percentage of their income into an account in their own name.  It’s supplemented by Medifund, an endowment set up by the government to pay the expenses of the poorest 10%.  And Eldershield provides supplemental care to the elderly and those with chronic conditions or disabilities.  Everyone has some skin in the game.  Families spend their own money for care from their Medisave accounts; so, they are careful how they spend.  Providers are, therefore, incentivized to provide good outcomes at affordable prices. 

It’s not perfect and it may not work on a large diverse population like that of the U.S. However, there’s a lot we can learn from it.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Gillette and Mothers of sons… Inventing economics… How did we get here?

Gillette and Mothers of sons

My new razor

In a new TV commercial, Gillette promotes the idea that we as a society have an obligation to fight “toxic masculinity.”  Like its forebear “testosterone poisoning,” this outrageous sexist term is accepted in everyday conversation as though the behaviors of a few bad men are the result of simply being born male.  

A generation of boys and young men are suffering by virtue of what is now defined as “social constructivism.” The theory goes that there is no difference between men and women other than that imposed by society.  So, we should discourage behavior that is stereotypically male to ensure women are treated equally.  As a result, boys are growing up in a culture that is questioning what’s wrong with them and casually derides them. 

Popular culture has followed suit.  Slang terms like “mansplaining” and “man flu” are in common use.  Popular TV shows once elevated Dads like Robert Young’s character on “Father Knows Best” and now deride them in shows like The Simpsons and Everybody Loves Raymond. 

For the last couple of generations, many fathers have raised their daughters to fearlessly be the best they can be.  An acquaintance of mine raised three girls all of whom were All-American lacrosse players in college and have gone on to success in business.  It’s time for mothers of sons to take the same approach. My mother raised three sons to have the courage of our convictions, to value achievement based upon merit and make moral judgments based upon fairness.  We were never ashamed of being male. 

What are you teaching your  sons? 

Inventing economics

Have you heard of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?  Probably not.

It’s a theoretical model based on absolutely no experience being used by the “progressive” left to justify unlimited deficit spending.  Using Quantitative Easing (QE), the practice of central banks monetizing debt to inflate asset prices, MMT would be used as the basis to simply let deficits grow.  No doubt, MMT would be used to justify Medicare for All (M4A), free college tuition and God knows what else.  What’s interesting is that QE has created much of the income inequality about which the left complains.  Low interest rates make assets like real estate and other investments more affordable. No doubt the progressive response will be to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who haven’t. 

Politically, MMT would enable politicians pass these massive programs without dealing with the nagging question, “how will we pay for it?”  Eventually, MMT calls for taxes to be raised when inflation gets out of control. By taking money out of the economy, inflation and growth would slow.  Well, at least they understand supply side theory even if they pay it no mind. 

I wonder how the public will react when they are told their taxes are being raised to fight inflation.

How did we get here? 

If you can carve out 20 minutes in your day (It’s tough, I know) to read a short story, I recommend “How This All Happened” by Morgan Housel.  It’s a very easy and fun read, an overview of Post-WWII history of American society and our economy.  

Each of us would take something different from it.  What I found it remarkable is how much the growth of debt was a factor in our economic growth.  From 1945 to 1965, US household debt grew from $49.4B to $331.2B.  That’s a modest sum by today’s standards but it’s 1.5 times faster than the growth in debt during 2000’s debt bubble. 

The momentum continues, of course.  As I wrote in “The Next Bubble to Burst Will Be…” global debt is now more than 300% of global GDP.  A truism about debt is that the more you have the less you get from it.  At manageable levels, it can enable economic growth, the acquisition of assets or high-return investments.  However, the larger the debt burden, the lower the return from each additional dollar of debt.  A clear manifestation of this phenomenon was the build up of excessive government deficits during the George W. Bush administration.  Each dollar of GDP growth was matched by a dollar of government debt. No multiplier effect at all.  Now that government debt exceeds 100% of GDP, each additional dollar of debt will subtract from GDP growth.  

What started as sound fiscal practice has become an addiction.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Competing for immigrants... My original sin... An MLK slip of the tongue

Competing for immigrants

I recently wrote to the senior senator from New York, minority leader Chuck Schumer. My message was simple: “Fight for what matters; let go of what doesn’t.  Fight for DACA; give him his damn wall.”  But, that ain’t gonna happen.  

Before I go on, here’s a two-sentence economics lesson.  (Two sentences, I promise.)

Growth in GDP is the sum of changes in productivity plus the change in population.  That’s not a theory; it’s a definition.  Two sentences! 

To keep the economy growing, we need economic policies that promote innovation (free market capitalism) and immigration policies that admit more immigrants.  There are other ways to grow the population than immigration of course. But, birth rates in the industrialized world are declining.  

Politicians, especially the president, stir up our worst fears about immigration – they take your jobs, kill your neighbors, and sell drugs. But those fears are unfounded. I lived in South Florida for 18 years among legal immigrants from Cuba.  I can assure you that Cuban-Americans are just like every other group of those descended from immigrants: aspirational.  Florida’s economy thrives not only because of low taxes and good weather but also because it provides a welcome environment for anyone who moves there whether they’re from Chicago or Bogotá. 

We have nothing to fear from legal immigration and everything to gain.  Our Canadian neighbors understand this and plan to welcome 1 million immigrants over the next few years.  We should emulate them. 

In short, if we expect our economy to continue to grow, we need to start competing for immigrants. 

My original sin

I’m a classic swing voter. I haven’t voted for a winning candidate in a presidential election since 1996.  Most everyone I know says they are conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social issues.  It’s a suburban mantra.  So, why does neither party ever give us a candidate who fits the profile?  A friend who worked on political campaigns in New York, says, “there aren’t enough of you” to gain the attention of the major political parties.

Philosophically, I am more aligned with libertarians than with Republicans and find myself most in agreement with Republicans on economics and defense.  On social issues, not so much. Yet, I can’t vote Democrat because of economic policies designed to undermine the free enterprise system. What’s worse is the religious right and the politically correct left both wish to impose their values on the half of the population that disagrees with them.   

As both the Democrat and Republican parties drift (some would say gallop) to the extremes, I have become politically homeless.  I am not alone on this.  An academic study done by More in Common suggests I am part of the “exhausted majority.”

I refuse to be part of a political party that embraces hypocritical economic policies (tariffs, deficits), isolationist foreign policies and abhorrent social policies (anti-women, anti-gay).  Alternatively, I refuse to embrace politically correct culture.  Use the wrong phrase or express the wrong view and you’ll be hounded off college campuses or reviled in mainstream media.  For a white male to be accepted in this subculture, one must be “woke.” Why would I want to be a member of a political party that treats being a white male as an original sin?

The MLK slip of the tongue

A local controversy has gone viral.  Weatherman Jeremy Kappell has been fired for describing a local park as “Martin Luther Coon King, Jr. Park” during a live broadcast.  It was a slip of the tongue that went by so fast you may not have noticed it had it not been caught by Rochester’s African-American mayor, Lovely Warren. The mayor called for his dismissal and got her way. 

You have to wonder how a professional on-air broadcaster could make such an error.  I don’t!  I suspect (I have no evidence) that he hung out with bro’s sometime in his youth – high school, college or young adulthood – who used the phrase consistently without the self-correcting addition of “King” following the gaffe.  

It’s interesting that Bernice King (MLK’s daughter) has advocated he shouldn’t have been fired.  Suggesting that “we’re just moving people around the board” when we “just fire them,” she advocates rehabilitation. I confess I don’t know what that means in this case.

In making this assertion, Ms. King is channeling her father’s best instincts.  MLK gained national attention and empathy for his cause, in no small part, because he showed us how our behavior was misaligned with our stated values.  Today, media, both mainstream and social, would rather divide us than remind us to find the better angels of our nature. 

WHO WILL LEAD?

Broadband… AOC… Pelosi… Ryan… WTF!

No, you don’t have a right to broadband Internet

Like anything, once the majority has something, everybody wants in.   The Wall Street Journal reports House Democrats have cobbled together an infrastructure proposal that includes “$40 billion in ‘direct federal funding to connect all of America to affordable high speed Internet.’” Meanwhile, in a report titled “If you think you have issues with your broadband internet, you’re not alone,” our local paper reports on the frustration of those who have eschewed an urban/suburban lifestyle, moving to rural counties where they are unable to get a consistent broadband connection.  

With scant attention to the cost of extending broadband to areas where it would be underutilized, the article tells us of the misfortune of the poor folks looking for five acres of land where they can raise chickens and bees without sacrificing their connection to cyberspace. A group advocating for extending broadband service, promotes the idea that broadband is “a utility now and we need universal access.”  The article closes with a quote from a frustrated schoolteacher saying, “Internet is no longer a privilege… it’s a right.”  The statement makes a now common error by confusing goods and services with “rights.”

To be clear, goods and services are not the same as human rights.  They may be (and generally are) unequally distributed.  For example, few rural communities have big shopping malls, big name entertainment or five star restaurants.  Rights, on the other hand, must be distributed equally.

Let’s not confuse the efforts to ensure equal rights with the desire to socialize the cost of providing services to those who can and do make informed choices. 

AOC

From the “Much Ado About Nothing” department comes a 12 second video of youngest woman ever House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (now dubbed AOC by the media, social and otherwise). Like almost everything, the video is at ground zero in the culture wars and is likely to remain there for at least a few more seconds.

Of greater concern to me is the Paul Krugman defense of AOC’s suggestion of top tax rates of 70 or 80%. How else will the government pay for free everything – healthcare, college education, whatever?  Citing studies done by Peter Diamond and Christina Romer, he uses a marginal utility analysis to explain why rates that high wouldn’t matter.  He fails to mention that Diamond’s study was done in the 1960’s when the highest rate, 91%, was lowered to 70%.  Nor, does he mention that Romer was run out of the Obama administration after its first year because she dared advocate that higher rates would dampen economic growth.

Nancy Pelosi (left) and AOC (right, no not really)

Pelosi and Ryan

So, long as I’m taking shots at politicians, I’ll close with some observations about two oft-mentioned names.

It’s fair to say that Nancy Pelosi’s politics are way too liberal for me to even contemplate.  I set that aside yesterday watching CBS’s Jane Pauley interview her.  There was one word that occurred to me at its end: resiliency.  She dismissed the target placed on her back during the recent campaign season saying, “once you step into the arena” you should expect it. She further asserted she would “go home” once her “mission” was accomplished and not before.  She sets a great example for young women – at least for those who venture forth from their safe spaces.

While my head is still spinning, I should point to one of my former heroes, Paul Ryan. Once the stalwart advocate of both low taxes and a balanced budget, he has departed Washington with a legacy that reflects neither.  As perhaps the most well informed member of leadership during two years of Republican control of government, he leaves us with a tax reform that is a mixed bag of good and evil along with a $1 trillion dollar annual deficit.  

I’m having a WTF moment. 

WHO WILL LEAD?