So, do you think all States are created equal ?
.
Saying Yes means some votes are more important than others . It actually means that each Oregonian vote is worth a quarter of someone from Montana and almost ten times the value of a Californian.
This is a reality that never seems to get coverage except in a lukewarm debate about the electoral college . it is time to talk about it more
The US Constitution gives two Senators to each state because in 1787 a federation of equal states had fought together and created a new country . They were equal.
Fast forward over two hundred years and we have 50 states ,variously acquired . We have had a civil war , fought in two world wars , experienced the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age and become a Superpower . States now have massively different populations.
Are the 50 States equal still ? Yes, is a legitimate answer but you should think about the consequences of saying Yes
Saying yes means that every state , no matter how many people live there , has the same say over the approval of Federal Judges including Supreme Court Justices , Attorney Generals , Ambassadors and a whole host of Federal appointments . The Senate is responsible for advice and approval of Presidential actions .All legislation has to be passed by the Senate . Look at the news in any week and you can see this process in action. Saying yes also biases the composition of the Electoral College which is attracting a lot of attention but is a minor distortion compared to the distortion of the Senate composition.
Lets us an example . Let’s pick on Montana which has a population of around a million people which is one of the smallest population states in the Union. We are saying that the votes of a million people in Montana carry the same weight as the 40 million citizens of whom 20 million are registered voters in California . Closer to home , Oregon is a small population state but its population tops 4 million . The constitution says that each person in Oregon is worth a quarter of a Montana resident when it comes to choosing a Supreme Court Justice . Does that sound OK to you ? Do you think we are worth 10 Californians?
To return to the lead question , do you think that all states are equal ? The constitution says Yes when it comes to the Senate . In 1787 I would have agreed . I don’t think so anymore . We talk about equality under the law . How about equality in the creation of the law , appointment of the Supreme court and so on.
I do so hate the word pragmatic
Why ? After all it is very hard to have a policy whose lead sentence is “ Come on guys lets be un pragmatic !!! it is so obvious that to get things done you have to be pragmatic , compromise and cooperate .
Here is the problem . I have seen the word(s) used in business and the business schools and the professions to fail to address the issue and in many cases to pretend that there is no issue or nothing on which a stand needs to be taken . It can be the coward or the crook’s way to do nothing when something needs to be done .
Let’s remember some Edmund Burke
- The only thing necessary for evil to triumph for good people to do nothing
- All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent
- Nobody made a greater mistake that he/choose you own pronoun who did nothing because they could do only a little
So, what do we do now ?
Pay attention to the Democrat candidates and watch them dance the word pragmatic
I don’t want pragmatism to be part of the debate right now . I want the lines drawn in the sand and the battle engaged.
- Let’s have a fight about what democratic socialism really means and how rich western countries can embrace it and not descend into Venezuela
- Let’s take on Citizens United and the ludicrous idea that money has the same rights as people
- Let’s talk about what it takes to make the super-rich pay their share for the creation of a prosperous country
- Let’s face up to what it really takes to provide affordable health care and affordable access to a good education and much of the people is composed of people who need this
- Let’s work out what a Green could look like
- Let’s battle with a mindset that thinks its better to put money into the military than build a great civilian world
- Let’s Battle with a mind set that thinks rewarding shareholders and high-level managers is the only way to grow wealth in a prosperous society
Of course, there will be practical issues to address when it comes to detail policy but right now, we don’t need pragmatic compromise we need full and honest debate. That must begin with lines drawn in the sand
Right now, my energy is supporting Bernie ,who does not compromise and Amy and Elizabeth who I admire but I worry will blink . Old Fashioned Democrats of the war and wall street party please do not ask for my support .
IS BERNIE TOO OLD TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT ?
Bernie was born in September 1941 . He will be 79 when he takes the oath of office in January 2021 and 87 when he finishes his second term .
Is he too old to be President ? To be honest I am not sure, but I AM CERTAIN THAT HE IS NOT TOO OLD TO RUN AND THAT THE COUNTRY NEEDS HIM TO RUN
I have signed up my monthly $27 for him .In the interests of full disclosure I have also signed up for Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar because I admire them too and maybe one of them will be the candidate.
Why is Bernie my number one choice for the primary campaign? It is simple . He is the most consistent in his endorsement and backing of a progressive agenda. He has never wavered .He is not afraid to tackle the words and ideas that scare Americans even if they are drawn to the logic of the argument . Words like Socialism , socialized medicine and affordable college for all . He is the least associated with the War and Wall Street of the old Democratic National Committee . He has shown a willingness to tackle corporate greed , PACs and the gradual dominance of big money in the politics of America `. He has shown himself to be the most willing to go into the grassroots territory and debate with real people
I have been arguing that right now the debate needs to be about the policy platform and not the candidate her/himself. The nature of the US system makes that difficult, so it becomes necessary to use the candidate as a proxy for the platform.
Bernie is the purest policy platform by a mile . We need him to make sure that the debate is real and involves the whole country .
Maybe he then becomes the candidate . Maybe someone else needs to take the platform to the promised land . Maybe the key will be choosing his Vice-Presidential candidate . I don’t know and I don’t think it matters right now . Sufficient unto the day . Right now, we need Bernie to run
What does it cost to get medical treatment in socialized medicine ?
I keep seeing this question being answered incorrectly by people of good and bad will on both sides of the political aisle .
The answers I keep hearing are either rosy tinted naïve statements or equally naïve arguments that the mere existence of socialized medicine bankrupts a country.
Failure to understand the answer is preventing a serious practical debate on the topic.
The key to socialized medicine is that , at the time of getting treatment , you pay little or nothing .
The essence of socialized medicine is that you pay through a tax contribution every day that you have a job and are earning a pay check . In most countries it is a progressive tax so the more you earn the more you pay .
The result is that , no matter how poor you are, if you get sick you get treated and you do not go bankrupt.
If you are lucky enough to never get sick, then your contribution is used to fund the health care of people who are unluckier than you are . This is how insurance works in general by the way.
IF YOU ARE FROM MIDDLE AMERICA WHICH IS ANYONE RELYING ON SALARY OR WAGE TO MANAGE LIFE’S VICISSITUDES THEN YOU OUGHT TO BE OUT THERE CAMPAIGNING FOR PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE THIS IDEA .
Don’t be fooled Socialized Medicine does not solve the triage challenges of modern life . Healthcare for all is expensive and full of practical and ethical challenges that exist in non-socialized medicine . It takes energy and policy wonks and compromise to manage . If we applied American exceptionalism to the solution, we could probably do it better than anyone else . Let’s give it a try
BRINGING THE WORD SOCIALISM INTO THE STATE OF THE UNION MAY HELP BRING ABOUT TRUMP AND REPUBLICAN RHETORIC DOWNFALL
I am hoping the President Trump’s reference to Socialism in the SOTU may help nurture a debate about modern welfare state capitalism that will sweep away grass roots support for cruel republican logic and behavior . A full debate on how solid market driven capitalism can live with county that does tax the rich and does spend that money to educate , provide health care and build roads and bridges throughout the land is just what the political debate needs .Other countries manage it and manage not to be scared off by the word Socialism.
For years Republicans have hidden behind an insane idea that all attempts to funnel through taxes money to build a gentler country while promoting a market economy leads to Venezuela . Trump was actually dumb enough to say it in the SOTU . The progressive middle class, which is anyone living of a wage , should start laughing and start looking at how most of the civilized west manages to have a market economy and a country that protects its own weak . They manage . They are not perfect . We could probably do it better if we would just try .
Capitalism has at its heart a belief that ONLY the ownership of private property is needed to create a stable , prosperous society . This is a ludicrous idea in theory and if you look around even in practice and even in the USA, which prides itself on Capitalist values . Labor is crucial to building business and community , a working government bureaucracy is needed . Some central government funded projects help.
The idea that making rich people richer and not asking them to contribute a fair share to building society is crazy . Look around and think about it
Will making rich people richer really
- Provide a high standard of affordable education for all working people
- Make health care affordable for all working people
- Make retirement easier to plan for all working people
This is the point about modern socialism . For all its faults its fundamental message is working people are as important to a successful and pleasant country as is privately owned capital and both can coexist in a fundamentally market driven economy that protects its people. Don’t let anyone tell you differently . Take the debate about the word socialism to the streets , the coffee shops , mothers’ groups and gym changing rooms and everywhere else . Do you want a prosperous gentle society where hard work is rewarded and working people are nurtured ? Do you really think that this can be done under virtually unfettered capitalism ? is the party you support or the person representing you in congress telling you that it can be? Hmm maybe you should ask them the next level question .
I have said that the focus should be on the platform to be got behind and not the name of the candidate
So, what would be my platform for a Democratic or frankly any other party candidate . I am not wedded to a party name per se.
I think there should be two driving goals
1. Rebuilding the middle class
2. Protecting the weak in a compassionate and practical way
My definition of the middle class is anyone essentially working from paycheck to paycheck and attempting to plan for children’s education , health care and retirement . I think this is the right way to describe the target demographic because it covers a lot of people who on the face of it might consider themselves to be different from each other . The size of the paycheck is not really the key differentiator for me up to quite a high level . I have not defined the top point, but it must revolve around having not to worry about middle and long-term planning because one’s pay is so high. My definition therefore extends from the very poor on minimum wage to a decent level of successful professional and blue-collar working people . The mantra is – if you are ruled by the alarm clock and your paycheck then you are middle class .
My definition of weak is anyone who has a genuine difficulty in coping with the essentials of living . I don’t care whether the disability is mental or physical , chronic and permanent or temporary ill luck . To a great extent, I don’t even care if there is some contributory negligence or dumb decisions that have played into the current weakness that a person is experiencing . We all make mistakes and have bad luck.
Compassionate to me is threading the line that I have talked about elsewhere as the historic debate about the deserving and undeserving poor . It comes from a hard-headed belief that all systems can be gamed and there will be gamers . On the other hand, it is based on a belief that most people want to stand on their own feet and work to solve their own problems but that they sometimes need help . I want the rules and administration of compassion to err on the side of risking being ripped off a little rather than being cruel . I realize that it is not an easy line to draw and there is a need to nerdy thoughts to work it out .
For me compassion also means recognizing that there are people who simply cannot cope, and they need to be protected by the rest of us because that is just the right thing to do
If those are my driving thoughts . Here are my top 5 topics that I will be looking for a candidate to be tackling . I don’t think that they are in order, but I do think that there is probably a maximum of 5 ideas that I can hold in my head at once .
I also think that it is good intellectual discipline to keep the number low . If you have something that you think should be in the top 5 then you should also be prepared to drop something from the 5
1. The influence of money in American politics needs to be curtailed . There are probably several items in this category but the repeal of citizens united is a good place to start. Taxing the rich is probably a topic within this idea as maybe gerrymandering .
2. Affordable Health Care for all is a must for me . I want its provision to be separated from employment which I see as one of the biggest drawbacks of the US system. The ideas need to be practical seeing the difficulties that socialized medicine has in real countries but also recognizing that we can do it if we set our mind to it . Slogans are not good enough . I have my views on what the solution should look like, but I would back anyone else’s practical solution
3. A minimum wage that allows someone who works a tough week to live above the poverty line and maybe a line above that . I don’t know what that number is but the math to calculate it is easy . I would probably also throw my hand in here to legislation that forced corporations to raise wages if they are also raising the return of capital to investors . I have ideas on how to do this too
4. A sane and practical approach to social security that recognizes the fundamental ugly math of defined benefit pension plans as well as showing compassion to the elderly
5. An investment program in education from Pre-K to Post Grade 12 such that a decent good education is available to all in a way that is affordable to all middle-class individuals
You will notice that my list has few “fix the world “ items such as climate and environment . It is not that I don’t care are them but I have come to believe that so many ordinary people are living lives of quiet desperation about making ends meet at the end of the month that it is not reasonable for them to be thinking about the end of the world too .
STOCK BUYBACKS ARE NOT IN THE INTEREST OF ORDINARY PEOPLE
I have long argued as a corporate executive and as a teacher in Business School that stock buybacks are a fraud on the small shareholder and mostly a waste of the shareholders cash . Their main effect is to distort genuine earnings per share and enrich institutional shareholders .
I have not been alone in this criticism, but I have felt like voice crying in the wilderness in the face of vested interest.
It is delightful to see Bernie attacking them though his agenda is even deeper than mine.
Let me summaries some things worth thinking about
Firstly, Stock Buy Backs use up cash . Duh I hear you saying but pause and think a little bit longer. Cash is the life blood of a business or indeed any enterprise including a human being . Enterprises die of lack of cash in the same way bodies die from lack of oxygen. My teaching mantra requires me to pedantically point out that it is operating cash that is the lifeblood of an enterprise , but all cash is good. By Buying Back Stock the company is saying that it has no better ideas for investing the stock . Think about that . This s what is at the heart of the Schumer/Sanders drive . Cash is being wasted by going to rich people and not to new investments in decent jobs and wages
The next myth to put to bed is that a stock buyback returns cash to the shareholder , whose asset it actually is, in the same way as dividend payment does . This argument is the laughable triumph of math over observed reality . When a dividend is paid cash is returned to the shareholder in a check . In a stock buyback cash only returns to a shareholder if they sell stock and this is where the fraud is perpetrated on the small shareholder – see next point
Now consider this , for all their massive size stock buybacks are a very small percentage of the outstanding shares. Let’s assume they are as much as 2 percent of outstanding shares. To return cash to a shareholder and hold the shareholder equal the shareholder needs to sell 2 percent of their holding . A small shareholder may only hold 300 shares – do you think she is going to sell 6 shares ? Now a hedge fund may own a million shares – selling 2 per cent of this is easy . Does this not sound like cheat the small shareholder to you ?
One last thought on the topic , who pays tax ? On a dividend the shareholder is liable for tax including an institutional shareholder . On a stock buy back for a hedge fund the gain goes in to the trading miasma that allows it to balance against losses such that tax is most likely never paid . In capital gains the small shareholder can do this too but they don’t usually have a massive portfolio with which to juggle. Guess which institutional shareholders want and because they control boards this is what they get .I content that this is a fraud on small shareholders – what do you think ?