Saturday, December 31, 2016

End of the Year

It seems that a lot of people are glad to see 2016 come to an end.  I am just glad to be alive to move toward 2017

Friday, December 30, 2016

Obamacare Truth

Before Trump Tries to Kill It, Obamacare Actually Just Got a Lot Stronger

By 
Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
A month ago, there seemed to be at least some possibility that the doomsaying predictions that Obamacare opponents have made since the law passed might finally come true. Premiums on the individual-exchange markets, which initially came in well below projected levels when the exchanges opened in 2014, spiked this fall by some 25 percent. While the price hike only brought premium levels back up to their initially projected levels, it seemed at least conceivable that the spike would set off a death spiral. If the higher premiums drove customers out of the exchanges, a shrinking pool could lead to higher rates, more customers leaving, and ultimately trigger a wholesale collapse.
The libertarian columnist Megan McArdle, who has been predicting the law’s imminent collapse since before it even came into existence, wrote a relatively balanced and honest column on November 3 laying out the two possibilities for the marketplace. “Are rates going up because insurers mispriced their insurance? Or are they going up because these markets are too unstable for insurers to make money at any price?” McArdle conceded it was possible that a “one-time pricing error” and a correction would leave the markets healthy. Her column landed on the other, more tantalizing possibility: that the markets would enter a death spiral. “No one knows,” she conceded.
But in the wake of the election and the holidays, when few people have paid attention, we have important news that makes the death-spiral scenario look extremely remote. First, sign-ups in the exchanges did not shrink. They actually set a new record, with 6.4 million sign-ups, exceeding the previous year’s total by 400,000. Second, a new S&P report concludes that the 2016 premium increases were, indeed, a “one-time pricing correction.” Insurers presented with a brand-new market initially set their rates far too low, and now they have found a sustainable price point that consumers are willing to pay. Going forward, the report projects that insurers “will likely see continued improvement … with more insurers getting close to breakeven or better.”
Premium rates and overall market health differ a lot from state to state — the markets are doing much better in states that are trying to make them work, like California, than in states that are trying to sabotage them, like Texas. But on the whole, the exchanges are stable, and the predictions of the law’s critics have mostly failed.
Right-wing critics have greeted this evidence the same way they have met all other news that the law is mostly achieving its goals: by ignoring it completely. “Insurance markets are collapsing,” insists Paul Ryan. McArdle’s column today casually states that if Republicans do nothing, the individual market will go “flaming into a tailspin.” Note the progression of her argument. A few weeks ago, she had conceded that “flaming into a tailspin” was merely one possibility. In the meantime, there has emerged very strong evidence that this possibility is not occurring. But instead of adjusting her argument to the news that this scenario is, at best, much less likely, she is now treating it as a certainty.
Obamacare’s continued non-demise is terrible news for the Republican party. The GOP base, fed on years of slanted news depicting the law as an unmitigated disaster, expects it to be repealed quickly. If the law was collapsing on its own, it might be easier for Republicans to kill it off, or simply to let it die, without a political backlash. But the existence of a stable, and indeed growing, constituency means that their agenda will create numerous victims. As Sarah Kliff’s close reporting in Kentucky found, many Obamacare beneficiaries voted for Trump either because they believed his promises to give them “something terrific” that would cover all their medical expenses, or they disbelieved his promises to repeal the law that they now depend on. They now face the reality that the Republican agenda will inflict serious harm on their own constituents.
If Republicans truly believed Obamacare was collapsing on its own, or that nobody liked the benefits it provides, they would either let the law die of its own accord or wait to replace it with an alternative of their own design. They won’t do either because they are coming face-to-face with the gap between their own delusions and stubborn reality

Thursday, December 29, 2016

The Accountant (Movie Review)

Good holiday time movie on Lorna Road.  I can't summarize the plot.  Suffice it to say that Ben Affleck plays an autistic man, a whiz with math, who ends up being an accountant for the mob.  He has military training and knows how to handle weapons to say the least.  The plot has substance and twists and is finally a commentary on autism.  Ben Affleck is the perfect actor to play a mostly expressionless autistic person.  Hollywood's exegesis on autism.

Good from a Trump Administration?

The good that could come from a Trump presidency

 Opinion writer  
Gloom is a terrible way to ring out the old, and despair is of no help in trying to imagine the new. 
So let us consider what good might come from the political situation in which we will find ourselves in 2017. Doing this does not require denying the dangers posed by a Donald Trump presidency or the demolition of progressive achievements he could oversee. It does mean remembering an important distinction President Obama has made ever since he entered public life: that “hope is not blind optimism.”
“Hope,” he argued, “is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it.” 
It is this spirit that began to take hold almost immediately after Trump’s election. Americans in large numbers, particularly the young, quickly realized that the coming months and years will require new and creative forms of political witness and organization. 
Trump’s ascendancy is already calling forth social and political initiatives aimed at defending the achievements of the Obama years (particularly Obamacare), protecting the environment, standing up for immigrants and minorities, preserving civil liberties, civil rights and voting rights, and highlighting how Trump’s policies contradict his promises to working-class voters. Here is a bet that the mobilization against Trump will rival in size and influence the tea party uprising against Obama. 

Obama and Trump have had their ups and downs since the election

 
Play Video2:34
President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump had kind words for each other in the aftermath of the election. Then things seemed to change after Christmas. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Another positive for the future: Trump’s campaign forced elites and the media to pay attention to the parts of the country that have been falling behind economically and to the despair that afflicts so many, particularly in rural and small-town America.
It should not have taken Trump (or Bernie Sanders) to bring their problems to the fore. If the powers that be had been paying more attention, the resentments and dissatisfactions that Trump exploited might not have been there for him to stoke. 
In 1972, Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb wrote a memorable book called “The Hidden Injuries of Class.” We forget about economic inequality at our peril. Every generation or so, it seems, we need to be reawakened to the injustices of both class and race and rededicate ourselves to remedying them together. We can now move forward with this in mind.
From the outline of his policies so far and from the right-wing Team of Billionaires he has chosen to run large parts of his government, it’s hard to see how Trump will advance the material interests of those who voted for him. But justified skepticism about Trump is no substitute for fresh thinking by his opponents about what they will do when they next take power.
Pollster Allan Rivlin has been offering a compelling presentation to Democrats, arguing that they lack a clear, comprehensible and convincing economic message. He’s right. It’s time they got one. The fact that this imperative is now nearly universally recognized is another piece of good news to come out of 2016 — even though the cost of the lesson was much too high.
It is also useful that Republicans will be put through a series of tests. If they fail to apply to Trump the same ethical standards they demanded of Hillary Clinton, voters will notice. The Republicans’ claims to fiscal prudence will be exposed as fiction if they follow through on pledges to combine large tax cuts, mostly for the rich, with big increases in military spending. 
For the past six years, Republicans have been able to pass radical budgets through the House to satisfy their ideological enthusiasts, knowing their policies would never become law. They claim to be pleased that they can now enact their full agenda on shrinking Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs. But as their plans move closer to reality, voters — including Trump’s supporters — will start counting the costs. In large numbers, they will find them too high.
Lastly, it’s hard to imagine a president more likely to inspire Obama Nostalgia than Donald Trump.
Folk singer Joni Mitchell might as well have been talking about politics when she taught us that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.

Monday, December 26, 2016

On Temperament

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once rendered a famous verdict on FDR. "A second-class intellect. But a first class temperament!"
I have read psychologist Jerome Kagan's pioneering work on temperament. The subject of temperament is immensely fascinating to me. Franklin Roosevelt indeed had a first-class, presidential temperament. No one ever accused him of being an intellectual, but it didn't matter. He was devious to be sure and was a called sphinx, but so could Washington and Lincoln be called a sphinx. He was the most consequential American of the 20th Century by far. (And now Gingrich takes aim at him). This thought comes to mind because we have a elected a man to our highest office who has a complete anti-temperament for the office. How tragic. There is no FDR in sight.

Pro and Con on the Electoral College

The electoral college is the worst of both worlds. It’s time for it to go.

 Opinion writer  
It’s important for those who favor the popular election of our presidents to separate their arguments for direct democracy from the outcome of a particular contest.
My colleague George F. Will’s recent column in defense of the electoral college offers an excellent opportunity to make a case that has nothing to do with the election of Donald Trump. 
After all, Will, admirably and eloquently, insisted that Trump was unworthy of nomination or election. So our disagreement relates entirely to his insistence that we should stick with an approach to choosing presidents that, twice in the past 16 years, overrode the wishes of Americans, as measured by the popular vote.
Will brushes aside these outcomes. “Two is 40 percent of five elections, which scandalizes only those who make a fetish of simpleminded majoritarianism.” 
But when is a belief in majoritarian democracy a “fetish” or “simpleminded,” and when is it just a belief in democracy? The current system makes a fetish of majoritarianism (or, to coin an awkward but more accurate word, pluralitarianism) at the state level, but it’s held meaningless nationally. Who is fetishizing what?
Part of the answer, of course, is that majoritarianism or pluralitarianism are not fetishes at all. They are how we run just about every other election in our country. If the people get to choose the state treasurer or the county recorder of deeds by popular vote, why should they be deprived of a direct say in who will occupy the country’s most important office?
According to Will, electoral college majorities are very special because they promote a particularly virtuous way of attaining power. “They are built,” he writes, “by a two-party system that assembles them in accordance with the electoral college’s distribution incentive for geographical breadth in a coalition of states.”
But “geographical breadth” is a relative term. The existing rules encourage candidates to campaign in 10 or 12 swing states and skip the rest. Where’s the breadth? The winner is picked not by the laws of elections but by the serendipity of the casino. If you’re lucky to hit the right numbers, narrowly, in a few states, you can override your opponent’s big margins in other states.
True, Will notes happily, the electoral college gave the presidency to Abraham Lincoln although Lincoln won just 39.9 percent of the popular vote. But there was no “geographical breadth” to Lincoln’s victory. He carried not a single state south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Will and I can both retrospectively cheer Lincoln’s election, but an outcome we happen to like doesn’t vindicate the process.
And at least Lincoln won a plurality of the total vote, beating the No. 2 finisher, Stephen A. Douglas, by 10 percentage points. Will notes that 1860 was among the 18 of 48 elections since 1824 that produced presidents who won less than 50 percent of the popular vote. Yet in all but five of those, the winner got the most votes. Nonetheless, to be consistent with my leanings toward majoritarianism, I’d favor a popular vote with an instant runoff in which voters could rank their choices. The transfer of second-preference ballots would eventually produce a majority winner.
The way we do things now, Will says, “quarantines electoral disputes” by confining them to one or, at most, a few states. I suppose, but not many of us felt “quarantined” in 2000 from the impact of Florida’s electoral mayhem
A favorite metaphorical defense of the electoral college is that the winner of the World Series is determined by games won, not runs scored. But in the electoral college, some games (and votes) count more than others. California gets one elector for every 713,637 people, Wyoming one for every 195,167. 
And consider a different metaphor. I doubt that Will, a fine writer about baseball, would want the national pastime to mimic tennis. Imagine basing the winner of a game not on the number of runs scored but the number of innings won, and with some innings counting more than others.
But the question of how a democratic republic should work is not a game. Will says that the electoral college has “evolved” since the 18th century. Well, yes, we now have the worst of both worlds: The electoral college is no longer the deliberative body envisioned by the founders, but it still thwarts the wishes of the majority. Will does not explain why only “political hypochondriacs” think that the winner of the most votes should prevail. In the absence of one, we should complete our evolution toward democracy and elect our presidents directly.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Scary Trumpism

Trump says he wants to expand the country's nuclear capabilities.  This man scares me to death.  He should scare everyone on the planet.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Fake News is Nothing New

Fake news is nothing new in American politics, which has always been a blood sport in this country. In the ratification fight over the Constitution in 1787-88 the back and forth was principled, but also vicious, personal, with endless prevarications on both sides. For example, the Antifederalists disseminated a newspaper article that alleged that John Jay, an arch-Federalist, had switched to the Antifederalist side---totally false. Federalists gave back as good as they got. The political blood started flowing before we became a country.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Stop the Electoral College Wishful Thinking


From Alexander Hamilton to Donald Trump: Electoral College history offers no room for wishful thinking 

Born of compromise, the Electoral College became a mechanism of party politics — and that's not likely to change 

SKIP TO COMMENTS 
From Alexander Hamilton to Donald Trump: Electoral College history offers no room for wishful thinkingAlexander Hamilton and Donald Trump  (Credit: AP/John Locher)
Millions of Americans are distraught at the prospect of Donald J. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office. Many hope that on Monday, Dec. 19, the Electoral College will block his ascendancy. This is wishful thinking. Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president on Jan. 20, 2017.
Fears of a Trump presidency are understandable. His behavior and cabinet choices reek with the stench of authoritarianism and oligarchy. But the Electoral College is not our safety valve. Yes, at least one Republican elector has announced he will not vote for Trump, and a handful of others have launched efforts to precede their vote with intelligence briefings about Russian influence in the election. None of this will stop at least 300 electors from choosing Trump.
Why not? The Constitution authorizes electors to make independent judgments. As Alexander Hamilton proclaimed in Federalist Paper No. 68, recently republished in these pages, electors would be “capable of analyzing” for themselves “the qualities” that were “essential to the presidency,” and “to possess the … discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” Hamilton said nothing about party loyalty. Electors would apply their own studious, careful and wise intellect to the choice, feeling obligated to nothing except their own conscience and sense of the public good.
But Hamilton’s imagined electors are not our electors; his explanation of the institution has no connection with our political reality, resembling that reality about as much as the three-fifths clause accords with our belief in “one person, one vote.” Most electors in 2016 will not act independently because by force of enduring habit and democratic tradition their role is exactly not to provide judgment. Their job is to ratify majority popular votes in their states. The majority of electors will do just that next Monday.
In short, the Electoral College bears almost no relation to its original intent, and that intent is murky. The Electoral College is in fact an apt example of how ill-designed arrangements survive by adapting to the pressures, force and power of stronger, more dynamic institutions. The Framers did not fashion our current system; the political parties did, although within the limits of the Framers’ design.
VIDEOHAMSTER WARS - IT'S 'STAR WARS' WITH HAMSTERS
Our uniquely American way of choosing presidents has a peculiar history. But let’s first give the Framers their due. They attempted something entirely novel: to reconfigure what always had been an undemocratic institution into some kind of popular one. Until the late 18th century, executive power belonged to generations of warriors, chieftains, princes, Lords and kings, to martial strongmen – and occasional strong women too — whose claims to power reflected muscle married to an assortment of self-serving mystical or religious myths. As James Madison pointedly observed, “War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
The Framers aimed to break with this tradition, by binding executive power to law and to a machinery of popular accountability.
Four times during a torrid Philadelphia summer, the Constitutional Convention voted tentatively to give Congress the power to choose the president. But skeptics raised questions: Some said this step would make for weak presidents; others wanted the people to make the decision, but critics complained that popular election would make the president too strong. Slave states, meanwhile, wanted to make sure their voice was heard especially loud and clear in the presidency. Feeling pressure to resolve tougher questions — especially the big-state/small-state controversy and the question of slavery — the delegates did what politicians do: They hesitated. Only after resolving the fiery issues of congressional representation, federalism and slavery — late in August when the Framers were desperate to exit Philadelphia — did they assign to a committee on unfinished matters the task of producing a consensus plan for presidential selection.
Eager to finish the job, the committee retrieved an idea offered back in June by Pennsylvania’s James Wilson: Let an intermediate body of electors choose the president. States could decide how to appoint them and their votes would be tallied according to the size of congressional delegations. And with the three-fifths clause in place, slave states had good reason to feel protected.
This plan was appealing enough to avoid heated debate. After all, most delegates understood that whatever rules they adopted, George Washington would get the first nod. Then, after Washington, support for presidential candidates would be so dispersed among the states that the House of Representatives would often make the final selection — with each state delegation voting as a single unit, another huge victory for small and slave states. In other words, the Electoral College’s design reflected fatigue and state power more than the force of philosophical argument. Hamilton’s essay was an elegant after-the-fact rationale for what was an inelegant, inchoate and makeshift solution to a dilemma that continues to haunt us: how to marry democracy and the presidency. Americans looked to political parties for the answer.
Strong political pressures quickly turned the new institution to partisan purpose. As early as 1796, one Federalist politician announced that the electors’ job was “to act, not to think.” And lest there be any doubt, “to act,” meant a vote for the Federalist Party candidate, John Adams.
Early in the 19th century, the emergent Democratic and Whig parties effectively remade the Electoral College into a mere mechanical device to accumulate and legitimate popular majorities within the states. By 1860, every state but South Carolina chose its electors by popular vote for partisan candidates; the current winner-take-all system was a settled practice because it suited party interests. Hamilton’s ideal of civic responsibility was dead, its burial a tribute to the power of institutional adaptation over hasty design.
ADVERTISEMENT
And so electors became the anonymous party faithful. Among well over 20,000 electoral votes cast since 1788, perhaps 150 could be counted as departures from party loyalty. We have become so accustomed to this tradition that we see “faithless electors” not as those who abandon their constitutional obligation, but as those who fail to rubber-stamp partisan state majorities.
In light of this history and practice, there is virtually no chance that 2016 will feature a revolt of the electors. Those opposing a President Trump will have to find other ways to press dissent and resistance.
As to the Electoral College itself, maybe the fact that twice in the last 16 years the loser of the popular vote became president will finally provoke a movement for direct popular election. In fact, a cruel irony of Hamilton’s argument might help to inspire such a movement. Among the greatest advantages of the Electoral College, he insisted, was that it would cripple the ability of “foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils … by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.” Hamilton could hardly have anticipated Russian hacking of our election, but he understood the dangers of international politics. The threat he identified was real, but the institution he praised will do nothing to thwart it. Only a stronger democracy can do that.
Sidney Plotkin is a professor of political science and Margaret Stiles Halleck Chair of Social Sciences at Vassar College. His most recent book is "The Political Ideas of Thorstein Veblen."