Why You Should Care

Let me cut to the chase. This posting is about Estate Taxes, known in the tax world as Transfer Taxes, or called by either dim or conspiring Conservatives as The Death Tax. It is also a posting about how you can know something about your world and still not have a conceptual understanding of it.

We all know there is a concentration of wealth in the United States. Historically there has always been a small wealthy class and such has been no different in other countries around the world. Yet the subject makes news, mostly in the liberal intellectual circles, and for good reason.

It is perhaps the single most destructive condition that can beset growth in a modern economy and undermine democracy as a viable social structure.  If wealth inequality in America was a cancer, we are now at stage 4.

Politicians pander to it from different directions. Economists and authors address it to a limited audience. People like Bernie Sanders try to elevate it to the level of a populous revolution.  For the most part all of this is ignored by the vast majority of Americans.

Statistics regarding this concentration float about somewhat. A common one, for example, claims that 40% of all private assets in the United States are owned by 1% of the population. Another is that the bottom 80% of the population own 15% of the Nation’s wealth.  Although the numbers may vary slightly, there are none that contradict the vast disparity or the general accuracy.

In an attempt to confuse the issue the subject is often misdirected (by interested parties and media alike) to differences in published rates of income, where the disparity is around one-tenth as extreme. Income minus expenses is the engine of wealth accumulation, but, as is commonly known; most wealth is accumulated by “income” that never sees the light of day, statistically speaking.

Whenever you hear wealth disparity described in terms of income either you or the source have been led astray.

My befuddlement relates to why these blatant facts are so meaningless to a majority of adults in America?  Even most of those few who see the extreme nature of the inequality are neutral as to the problems created therein. What are the problems? Immense.

They include stagnation of economic growth, disenfranchisement of the working poor, undermining of democratic rule, formation of oligarchies, increase in class dependencies, and international policies that are not representative of the nation as a whole…to name a few.

However, the affects are the subject of another post. Here I want to look at the why in the question why don’t people care, and the how in the question how can we make it better.

Most Americans, say 90% (just a guess on my part, could be bigger), live in a world of 5s, 10s, and 20s. Whether it is the person who lives with assistance, who works paycheck to paycheck, or who lives comfortably without financial fear, he or she moves through their fiscal life with numbers they can understand.

The use of money is conceived in multiplies of what one can actually hold in their hand. Children are still taught about finance with coins placed in their grasp. A $10,000 windfall is a big deal.  It doesn’t matter if generations affected by inflation view the cost of a tomato differently; it is still understandable, despite how inflation may impact behavior.

What people don’t understand is hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, or trillions. These numbers are a conceptual black hole for everyday Americans and therefore are not calculated into how we intellectually or emotionally view the world.

Bernie Sanders consistently makes reference to the Billionaire Class without giving it much definition. I define it as individuals with over $200 million in net assets that have relative liquidity.  I do so because I feel that number is a point in which the number itself loses all meaning to the average American. It could be more or less, but no matter.  There is no rational association the average American can make with someone who controls that kind of wealth...and the wealthy know it.

You know the truth when you hear Americans of limited means honestly argue that the wealthy are “the jobs creators”, that they pay “more than their fair share of taxes”, that addressing the issue is “class warfare”, that they achieved their great wealth from “hard work” (as if they dug it from the ground), that they are burdened by “Government regulations”, that Government spending is un-American, or that the only answer to national concerns like education, health care, or even the military is the “free market”. These everyday Americans cannot assimilate the wealth of those they are unwittingly defending. They are sadly duped.

How in this muddled mess can we change things? There are many ways to begin to tilt the nation toward greater equality and, as a side effect, greater prosperity… too many to cite here. The one I want to address is by far the best, because it, over time, redirects assets based on the obscene accumulations themselves.  It is Transfer Taxes (aka Estate Tax, “Death Tax”, Gift Tax, Inheritance tax).

These Transfer Tax laws currently affect less than one-tenth of one percent (>0.001) of Americans.  You’re not even in the game until your taxable net worth is over $5.3million (twice that for couples). However the tax laws are extremely complex and over the years modifications (aka loop holes) have been built into the law allowing the tax to be dodged in part or entirely. Current revenues from Transfer Taxes amount to less than three-tenths of one percent (>0.003) of the Federal Budget.

If you are an ordinary American citizen and want to make one small step in the right direction, support those who advocate rigorous Transfer Taxes.  Leave or even increase the current starting level of taxation ($5-10 million), but tax rates should rise above that to total taxation of 50 to 75% or more.  Your individual with a billion dollars in net worth would leave his/her heirs to struggle along on say $300 million.  Are you kidding me? There is no argument here, just a lack of conceptual understanding.

This is not injustice.  The “system” in the words of our current billionaire leader “is rigged”, and has been for at least the last 50 years. It’s been rigged for a selective few (including him) and redistribution into spending for the benefit of the nation as a whole is in order. The revenue from those transfer taxes could, for example, cover the cost of healthcare for the entire nation for decades and beyond.

Think about that the next time you pay a health insurance premium or forgo health care due to cost; while Trump and his family pay for concierge doctors from the money they find in their sofas. Perhaps that's something you can understand.

It Could Get Dangerous

I am trying desperately to ignore the “Trump transition” just to have a brief period of peace, but it is getting so, so hard to do. Restricting my news consumption to NPR didn’t help. One of the latest news blurbs violently tipped me from my lotus position.

Trump decided to have a “summit” meeting with television news executives and on-air news personalities (TV news anchors and reporters with high exposure).  He demanded that the meeting be off-the- record, and, for reasons I cannot fathom, they agreed to it. When I heard this I felt foundation cracking beneath my feet.

There are exactly two things that comprise the bedrock of American Government as a successful long term social design, at least if success is defined within the context of world history. They are (1) the making of open and free speech sacrosanct, and (2) the establishment of and faith in an independent Judiciary.  I don’t know how many legs hold up the American “stool”, but either one of those two go and the whole thing falls into something else.

The meeting was unprecedented and rightfully so. It had never happened before because it should never have happened in the first place. For a President or President-Elect to hold such a private meeting is, literally by definition, intimidation of a free press, even if all they talked about was Thanksgiving recipes.

As it happened (as leaked) they didn’t talk recipes, instead the news people were lectured to by both Trump the bad cop then Trump the good cop. He first expressed his displeasures with the news media singling out specific people , then showed them how fair he was (it was leaked that he said he “likes Obama”….please). It all had shades of The Apprentice.

That Trump would want to do something like that is no surprise. It is quite consistent with his modus operandi and reality TV mentality. What is so surprising is why these news media people agreed to the terms this government mogul set. Why, why, why would any of them agree to an off-the-record meeting?  

For God-Sakes…these are news people! They, if anyone, should know the importance of the public not being shielded from how it (the public) is to receive information. In case anyone noticed, some television news networks didn’t even report on the meeting, nor commented on it when someone else brought it up in an interview.

This all harkens back to my previous post that the Trump Administration is on track to become the most opaque in history, possibly run by someone who is isolated and mentally unstable. If Trump goes to war with free speech (hell, he’s already attacking Saturday Night Live and Broadway) then the uncertainty of what is making our Government tick could become a cancer.

How could this create havoc? Economically it could hurt, but the reality is the President has limited power over the Economy directly, except for his inability to successful react to crises and thwarting progressive change.  It is internationally where Trump’s isolation could make this world a different place.

The goal of Terrorists is simple. There are no conquering Armies in the extreme Islamic world to march over nations like 12^th century Mongols. They seek through individual actions the disruption of Western society. They don’t care how or what it leads to, just that it happens. Their end game is irrational because their ideology is irrational. They have to love the idea of an American President that has the potential of being so malleable.

How do you think they (terrorists) might deal with an unstable American President who has his name in huge letters on 33 buildings around the world? How would Trump react to an assault on him personally?  How are the American people going to know about how they are being led when the press and news media are shut off from the President’s administration? When his primary concern is his own financial empire, how would he act in response? Who would pay the price?

The news media cannot abandon the American people. They should overtly back the First Amendment to the Constitution by publically and aggressively demanding transparency of the Trump Administration, and attacking disinformation. Not enter into his Tower with their tails between their legs. If, God-forbid, Trump and his Republican Senate can pack the judiciary with beholding individuals, it could blind the American people for decades.

Kum Ba Yah? I Think Not

Via social media I was directed to an uncharacteristically serious soliloquy by Stephen Colbert given the evening of (what will forever be known as) The Election. He, of course, was trying to publicly react to this event for which humor had no place.  For him, like many, many people, the election of Donald Trump had been elevated to the level of tragedy.

His presentation was similar to other statements by well know people, including Obama and Hillary herself, but with equal or better eloquence and some attempts at distraction. He chose to accept and look beyond The Election, reflecting with remorse on a divided America and encouraging hugs for your politically erstwhile neighbors. 

They all sounded to me like kum ba yah moments, directed at those who are limping through the various stages of mourning.

These comments are not much different than claims consistently made by politicians through election cycles, albeit with less gut retching incredulity. Even Donald Trump has claimed to be the one guy to pull everyone together. Fortunately for Trump, according to him, he’s loved by everyone, so perhaps his task is less challenging.

I felt the same when John Kerry lost his bid for the Presidency.  With a son in Iraq I was truly devastated when the Nation decided not to change course. Yet I still felt that we could move on without fear to change the future even if it wasn’t going to happen in the following year.

I’m sorry, but this time it’s different.  Kum ba yah won’t cut it.  Buckle your seatbelts for we are in for a rough ride.  We’ve just forced the pilot to parachute out and turned over controls of the plane to the loud mouth guy sitting up in first class, whose most accomplished skill is hitting a flight attendant’s butt with smoked almonds.

Still, it is entirely possible that The Donald may, in fact, bring everyone together for we all sit in the same plane, Conservatives, Liberals and Independents alike.  We may all learn that there is nothing that brings people together like the communal fouling of breeches.

There are two aspects to Donald Trump and, therefore, his Presidency to look for, both of which I have repeatedly brought up in this blog. Each is a dominant characteristic, likely uncorrectable, and capable of profound National disturbances.  Other than duck and cover I don’t know how Americans are to prepare.

One of the few honest and accurate claims Trump has made about himself, maybe the only one, is that he is unpredictable.  He views that as a virtue, and in certain circumstances he has probably used that characteristic to his advantage. However, for the new job he assumes next year that lack of predictability will have far reaching negativity.

If Conservatives think they can predict that he will respond to their issues with vigor I believe they will be more than mildly surprised.  Trump was never a Conservative ideologue.  He is a free floating pragmatist.  The press and the pundits will be spending their time trying to apply meaning to his last action or statement.  He might support the fight against climate change one day and the next advocate a return to coal fired electrical plants. There will be no wall, but immigration…who knows? I wouldn't be the least surprised if his nomination for the Supreme Court was Merrick Garland.

The problem, of course, is that the world, especially finance and business, runs on some semblance of predictability. As time goes by markets will suffer badly and the economy will face puzzling challenges, inflation for one as currency markets are destabilized.

It will be much like a busy intersection where the red, green, and yellow lights change at random times and in random order. There will be accidents.

Internationally that kind of uncertainty creates its own set of problems, even dangers. There will be insurgent aggressiveness on the part of immerging powers such as Russia and China.  Without the stabilizing effect of the US, the European Union could slide back further (post Brexit) into its own nationalistic isolationism causing its dissolution.  NATO and the United Nations will both be made less relevant if not actually neutered.   

There is no way to underemphasize the importance of reasonable predictability in a world of uncertainty. Without it the result is chaos. If Trump actually performs as promised, he will lower the flaps and our plane will take a 45 degree nose dive toward Mother Earth.

The second, equally scary, aspect of President-elect Trump is that he has a clinical narcissistic personality disorder.  I mean that.  He is not like someone with that problem, he has the condition.  That means, among other things, he cannot accept responsibility for his actions which result in something other than (his concept of) personal success, and he must overtly find someone or something else as the cause.

There are numerous characteristics to this disorder, but for a President there is one (not to be puny) that trumps them all: paranoia…spiked with delusion. 

The American Presidency is like a line that connects a bunch of dots, each dot being a crisis. Given that Trump, through no fault of his own, has virtually no experience running a small bureaucracy let alone one as massive as the most powerful nation and biggest economy on the planet. Remember, all his experience was within his own little fiefdoms.  To use a metaphor; he hired and fired at will and whim. Bottom line is he is going to screw up either by his own choice or by choosing the poor advice of the incompetents he may surround himself with.

The buck will not stop with him.

He will begin to blame anyone and everyone around him or take unprecedented actions against institutions like the Press. That will distance him from members of his Administration which will intensify his irrational fears of, for example, conspiracies against him. The only exceptions will probably be his children. It is no accident that this man who claims that everyone loves him has no real friends, as has been published. The dangers of this condition in a President with extraordinary powers are frightening, much of which we may not know until it’s too late.

The opaque nature of his Presidency will make the Nixon Administration look like Saran Wrap.    

I for one am quite glad that he has already announced that his three older children and son-in-law are to join him in managing his Administration. They may be the only bulwark that keeps him from running amuck or doing something cataclysmic due to his own isolation.

Both these interpretations of a Trump Presidency sound horrific…because they are.  The end results could vary widely.  If we’re lucky he’ll decide to be a one term President, which would be consistent with his personality. We would not have to face his being President and running for office simultaneously…just think about that in the context of what we just experienced. Hopefully we can get out of this tunnel without avalanches at either end.

For Stephen Colbert: well with Trump and notables such as Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christy, and Sara Palin as the flight crew, we should have a few chuckles even if the plane never reaches the tarmac. Just don’t let Trump see you laughing. 

Sorry Bernie

With hindsight it is not difficult to make the argument that Bernie was correct back in the spring. He did have a better chance to win the Presidency than Hillary Clinton. Even considering the beating he would have taken as a “Communist” and “anti-Capitalist” for his ridiculous need to label himself, I now truly believe that Trump could not have cast a big enough shadow over him had Sanders been his opponent.

The populism that supported Bernie would have more than cancelled out Trump’s bizarre following.  That fact could be seen during the primaries, but I still didn’t support Bernie though I liked him and what he stood for…a lot.  I favored Clinton over Sanders because I thought Bernie was too old, a factor that really has no intrinsic substance.  I thought his claims to Socialism to be too toxic and unexplainable to an undereducated Nation. I felt he didn’t have the depth of international experience as did his opponent.

However, the main reason I supported Hillary over Bernie was because she is a woman, and I personally believe America is woefully late in putting real teeth into what has been to date lip service in dealing with gender inequality. Besides, male political leaders over recent decades have generally failed miserably and I don’t discount testosterone as being an underlying cause.

No do-overs unfortunately.  Sorry Bernie…sorry America.

I have to consider why I was so wrong to let head overrule my heart. I saddled up to the TV election night figuring I was going to watch the New England Patriots play the Virginia Cavaliers and I had happily bet my granddaughters’ futures on the Pats.  Here are, to my mind, the six primary reasons I lost my bet (in ascending magnitude)

6) Abortion. It was barely touched by either campaign but a continuing loser for Progressive Democrats. They fail to understand that there are tens of millions of Christian Conservatives who vote on this issue alone, virtually blinding them to anything else. Pro-choice advocates continually fail to see the common ground and validate the emotions of those who believe there is political solution to this issue.  Hillary was no different.

5) James Comey and the FBI. As the election ended up extremely close (60,000 votes switched in the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and probably Michigan would have changed the outcome) it is perfectly reasonably to claim that Comey’s editorial rant against Hillary in July and his late October letter, which caused speculation on post-election indictments of a President-elect Clinton, was clearly enough to either sway large numbers of voters, keep them from the polls, or motivate them to vote against Clinton. No single individual did more to elect Donald Trump than James Comey...period.

4) The Media. Perhaps the nearly comical irony is that Trump riled against a Media that was the major supporter of his campaign. Seeking cash producing ratings gave Donald estimated $billions of free coverage. Bad or good was irrelevant.  There was so much coverage that no one idiotic bumble by Trump could have an impact. After a while all anyone really heard was the Trump name, which of course has been the secret to his lifetime success (not having to hear that name after November 8^th was my single biggest glee of anticipation). 

Do you remember the virtually insane insistence that he saw thousands of (supposed) Muslims in(specifically) Jersey City, NJ cheering as the NY Trade Center buildings went down on 9/11? It never came up again by Democrats, media, or otherwise.  Why? When the media publishes hundreds of similar statements, or when Politifact burns more pants on Trumps account than there are pants at Macy’s, it all becomes a blur…to Trumps advantage.

Had the 38 year old Fairness Doctrine not been jettisoned by Reagan in 1987 this one sided coverage would never have happened.

3) The polling and prognosticators. There is a lesson in here that will hopefully surface by the next national election.  What national polling did this year made me wake up November 9^th feeling personally violated.  The reasons why the polling was so wrong deserves its own analysis, but the impact of inaccurate polling I cannot understate here.

Two weeks before the election the media analysis of polling was speculating on a Clinton landslide.  There is no way you can go, especially with voting already underway in many states, from landslide to loss without there being incompetence.  The effects are huge. It kept away unenthusiastic Clinton votes because they viewed it as a done deal, it motivated moderate Trump supporters just to make their own statement.  There was undoubtedly a “Brexit” style vote where people voted for Trump to register their protest of (whatever) because they were confident from the polling that the nut case would never be elected.

2) The Clinton Campaign.  Perhaps over time we will learn who the prime mover was, but the Clinton Campaign was ill-conceived and poorly executed.  They were handed possibly the most undesirable and easily beatable opponent one could conceive.  They then proceeded to feed the beast and starve themselves.

The character and nature of Trump was baked in and out of the oven by the end of his Keystone Cops convention.  Still, the Clinton Team spent (I’m guessing) 90% of the rest of their campaign arguing what everyone already knew.  They failed to see that the extensive history that Hillary had, good and controversial, needed to be told…and sold.  They really never fought to give us reasons to vote for Hillary. 

In the 2^nd and 3^rd debates she should have dismissed Trump outright and not brought up a single negative, rather to focus on issues and national pride.  Even though she was considered the “winner” each time, I felt disappointed and nervous.  She won the anti-Trump vote, but she never sealed the deal on the “for Hillary” vote. The fact that she is personally a mediocre campaigner made that essential.

So what is my number 1 reason?  Simple. The main reason Hillary lost was because she is a woman…it’s just that uncomplicated.  Change that one fact, with all other things being equal, and “Mr.” Clinton wins. If Trump had fouled up his email to no consequence it would fallen to number 783 of all the reasons to reject him. This is obvious by the immediate facts of the election but over time will become more obvious.  This Nation is currently not ready to see women as leaders and that attitude is true for both American men and women.  The ramifications of this reality have their own trajectory in business, but opponents are gaining ground. It still lags, though, in Government and certainly lags compared to the rest of the Western World.  You’ll find it far more consistent in places like Russia and China.

As I’ve written before in this blog, the real problem with this issue is not men. The problem is American women. There is a view primarily among those pre-Vietnam and baby boomer generations that being a feminist is essentially un-feminine.  They are unable to see or perhaps even accept the changes that are taking place in our societies, or they are often guided by antiquated religious dogma.  Therefore, they consider the issue of gender inequality as it affects them, rather than to think of it as they look down at their daughters and/or granddaughters.  I am profoundly sadden to believe that at age 67 I might not live to see an American woman become President and Commander-in-chief.  It may have to wait until half the baby boomers have passed on or living on Ensure IVs.

To think that I’ve got Donald Trump instead is nothing but proverbial salt in the wound…and plenty of it.

Predicting the Unpredictable

Tim Kaine had a lost opportunity last Tuesday night in his “debate” with Mike Pence. No, he actually had several lost opportunities in failing to present himself to the American people as someone with a broad view of this election.

Instead, contrary to his personality and demeanor which is well known in this State, he followed the Clinton campaign strategy to try and score points by aggressively trapping Pence into contradicting Trump’s positions or to make him fumble by agreeing with the Trump absurd-o-mania.

Score points with whom?

Trump’s core support is baked in. Changing their view of Trump by pointing out the obvious is like trying to make the yoke of a hardboiled egg runny by cooking it longer. Even so called “independents” are saturated with the Donald’s endless parade of psychotic observations, opinions, and predictions.

Sure Trump won’t release his tax returns, but at this point no one expects him to.  I don’t. That train has left the station, along with all the other trains, boats, and planes that represent the disgraceful candidacy of Donald Trump.

Someone with an audience needs to step up and begin a discussion not solely directed on what a troubled person such as Trump has said and done to define himself so crudely, but what he represents to the Republican Party specifically, and the ideologically conservatives in general. These are things that will still exist after the Donald is left on history’s political trash heap.

There are numerous points that can be illuminated. From his emphasis on not being “politically correct” to broaden nuclear warhead proliferation to torture to tax breaks for the wealthy to ethnic profiling to….oh hell, you know what I mean.  It’s all been out there for months.

In this posting I want to reflect on one little subtle claim Trump has made that makes a big difference.

On numerous occasions at rallies or in interviews Trump has taken pride in making a specific claim about himself.  “I am unpredictable” he has stated in very simple terms. He has taken specific satisfaction in applying this characteristic to how he would engage in foreign affairs, but he has liberally applied it to how he approaches any “deal”.

This embracing of unpredictability is not a small thing.  Predictability is the single most important counterbalance to chaos. To advocate unpredictability is to advocate for chaos. This is what Trump believes and, for once, I believe him.

In our social world we cannot predict with certainty, but it is important that one should not equate predictability with certainty.  Certainty is reserved for physical law.  Predictability is what we aspire to in business, government, and our personal lives.  Without it no business could survive or even begin, government could not create useful legislation, the military would run amok, and relationships could not coalesce.

Most human endeavors begin with an assessment of the outcome. The greater confidence in the predicted outcome the less we are encumbered by risk.  When there is less sense of risk there is less anxiety and a greater probability of achieving goals.  Chance and error do enough to undermine our predictions; we don’t need national leaders to empower pandemonium as a quality of government.

Mixing unpredictability with nuclear weapons, for example, is virtually a formula for the annihilation of the human species.

I’ll make these predictions if Trump is elected: the stock market will drop precipitously over the next four years, the housing market will collapse, racial and ethnic instability will increase dramatically, the United States will become isolated among nations, deficits and (therefore) the National Debt will soar, and those that view the United States as a pariah will be elated and feel justified.

These, I believe, would occur not because Trump is misogynistic or a racist or a narcissist or simply coarse and vulgar at every level.  These things would happen because he is unpredictable and, as they say, the fish rots from the head.

I heard one commentator describe people casting a vote for Trump as them throwing little Molotov Cocktails at the government. I think that image works. A random bombing without thought of the consequence is exactly where the Donald wants to be.

The Lotto Effect and the Selling of Terrorism

One of my favorite quotes (origin unknown) is: “Someone is going to win Lotto; it just ain’t going to be you”. Of course this is a paradoxical statement, but quite true in the real world. It is a reality that in the practical application of statistics, when the odds of something happening become increasingly infinitesimal, at some point they become the equivalent of zero without actually getting there.  

There is virtually no risk a sane person wouldn’t take if the chance of a negative outcome was only 1 out of 259 million, which just happens to be the odds of winning the Megamillions jackpot. The inverse should also be true, that there is no risk a sane person would take knowing success was also 1 in 259 million, even if that risk is just one dollar.

Yet that’s not what happens. There are millions of perfectly sane people who take that irrational risk every day. The proponents of public lotteries have successfully argued that it is really just a form of entertainment, an innocent application of fantasy, or even (gulp) a social form of charity - a 21^st Century offshoot of a raffle at the church bazaar. Not really.

Actually, it’s simply a form of regressive taxation, since the proceeds in every state go to their general budgets, through the front door or the back. But that’s a topic for another time. Here I want to look at why individuals, disproportionately poor and/or undereducated, find lotteries so attractive…what I call The Lotto Effect.

Regardless of the sensation it engenders, akin to entertainment or fantasy, most all people who purchase a ticket or tickets have an expectation of winning, however small it might be. No one buys a ticket knowing they are going to lose. Even though that expectation might be tucked away in a corner of the brain separated from reality, it is most definitely there.  It is that expectation which is the real product being sold by the public lottery industry and it is accomplished by making the winning a public event.

Suppose in the process of running a lottery no player ever saw or even heard of anyone winning, including actors in commercials pretending they were winners. The only indication of winning would be the sudden drop in the jackpot. Add to that a demonstrably clear explanation of the odds. How long would the lottery be profitable?  You see, the key to selling the lottery is to make obvious the first part of the paradox - someone is going to win - and make invisible the second part - it just ain’t going to be you.

The rocket fast and entirely invasive nature of communication in today’s world makes this sales job easier than it’s ever been.

The Lotto Effect doesn’t just deal with lotteries. We can find it all over the space in which the expectations being “sold” bear little resemblance to reality.  However unlike the lottery, such sales primarily trade on people’s fears: germs, disease, crime, safety e.g.. The ratings and profits that feed news service’s coverage of a tragedy demonstrate that someone will or indeed did experience it, with endless displays of victims’ miseries.  However, there won’t be much coverage (or none) on the fact that there is almost no chance it could happen to you.

One of the more insidious applications of The Lotto Effect is the use of Terrorism as a means of promoting news ratings and political futures.

The true definition of Terrorism is an act of violence or threatened violence which creates a reaction disproportionate to its threat and for no other purpose than the reaction itself.  To the extent the reaction is not disproportionate it is simply a crime.  In other words, if people unaffected by the crime do not react in terror, it is not Terrorism.  

Terrorism certainly existed before the destruction of the World Trade Center, but it was that event that turned it into an industry in the US.  The Beltway Snipers who killed 10 people in 2002 nearly shut down the Mid-Atlantic, an area with about 25 million people. It was indeed domestic Terrorism.  For weeks people hundreds of miles from the crimes questioned whether they should buy gas or let their children go to school. But once the snipers were caught the fear ended.

Not so with the World Trade Center. The Terrorism that began then has not abated to this day. It has, in fact, gotten worse. Why? It is primarily because it is good business, for the media and politicians.

Even the World Trade Center tragedy, which was accomplished with only a little training in aeronautics and some box cutters, had practically no direct affect on the workings of American business, government, or society and yet it profoundly changed all three.  Our entire nation became color-coded, as if we were preparing for the Huns to land on Myrtle Beach.

The handful of domestic crimes in the US since 9/11 that sought to promote Terrorism have been wildly successful, not because of the damage and misfortune they caused, but rather because of the extraordinary publicity they received, and the use of those tragedies by politicians.

The media and politicians have fed the fear of terrorists for their own ends. The goal is to make every American fear that they and their loved ones are at risk.  The Lotto Effect, that this could happen to you, was front and center, never mind that out of 330 million people you maybe have a better chance of being licked to death by puppies.

Donald Trump has fashioned nearly his entire campaign around promoting such fears to gain support and, regrettably, it has worked. Even as the few terrorist attacks this Nation has experienced since 9/11 have been domestic, he has focused his campaign on foreign and non-Christian nationals as the source for an anxiety he is working to create. The media, primarily interested in profitable ratings, unwittingly helps him and other Terrorism profiteers at every turn.

The Lotto Effect manipulates too many Americans, the proof of which is the very existence Trump himself.

As a Nation we can’t seem to focus on the real risks. The American public is more concerned about a deranged individual spreading a few pressure cookers about than they are with the deranged leader of North Korea having access to nuclear weapons. Everyday gun violence gets only spotty coverage. Neither North Korea nor gun proliferation demonstrates the The Lotto Effect because people’s expectations are so low, even as the reality of being affected (by guns) or the massive affect of a threat (nuclear weapons) is strikingly real.

I recently toured the 9/11 Museum and Memorial in NYC.  It is an incredible exhibit and fitting testimony to the innocents that were killed and injured in that attack.  I couldn’t help wondering, though, in the light of all that has happened since; the lifestyle changes, government controls, massive surveillance, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the concentrations of wealth and power, social divisiveness, public and personal anxieties, and trillions of dollars, if this Museum was as much a testimony to how we surrender to Terrorism than how we grow from it.

Politicians are eviscerated anytime they even hint that small scale attacks meant to terrorize cannot be stopped entirely. Ask John Kerry who suggested such in 2004.  The fact is that as long as we react irrationally (Lotto Effect) and the perpetrators get almost endless news coverage the incentive for such attacks is baked in. The only way to neutralize Terrorism is not to be terrorized. The real winners of Lotto are the ones who never play.

The Art of the Sour Deal

A lesser understood promise by Donald Trump and the Republican Party has to do with their pledge to repeal the so called “Johnson Amendment”.  Despite that it was included in the Republican Party platform, addressed by Trump in his acceptance speech, and introduced to the “thousands” of readers of this blog it still garners essentially no attention by anyone other than those who want to see it eliminated – evangelical Christian organizations.

It has become red meat on Fox News for those who believe that anyone who doesn’t actively support “patriotic” Conservatism has the singular desire to take away every gun in the Country and ban the words Merry Christmas from the American lexicon.

Part of the reason the subject is not embraced by those who are not evangelical Christians is that they, including the news media, don’t have a working understanding of what it is. If the topic arises in the news it is passed off as “the law that restricts Churches from engaging in politics” (that is verbatim).  No, no, no, no, NO!!!

This issue is an excellent example of what is wrong with the dissemination of information by news organizations.

Christian organizations, notably televangelist and religious colleges & universities, know exactly what it means.  However, when people like Jerry Falwell, Jr. (son of Jerry Falwell, leader of the Thomas Rhoads Baptist televangelist group, and president of Liberty University) speak on Fox News they fashion their rage as a government restriction of their freedom and an oppressive violation of their First Amendment rights.

Such fits neatly into the Fox News basket.

What they are not confessing is that their desire to eliminate the “Johnson Amendment” really has to do with the most sacred aspect of their ministries – money.

There are NO government or legal restrictions that keep any church or university from pursuing any political issue or candidate that they want to. Do I need to repeat that?  The First Amendment protects such organizations as much as it does for any individual…another reason to be proud of this Country.

What the “Johnson Amendment” does is keep YOU from taking a tax deduction if YOU give money to a charitable (501(c)3) organization that engages in such political activity. That’s it. It does this by requiring the IRS to revoke the organization’s 501(c)3 status if they so engage. It does NOT mean that such church, University, or other charitable organization would have to start paying taxes nor does it restrict them from engaging in any political activity, as long as it's not their primary activity.

Why is this law important and why are evangelical churches and universities so zealous in their desire to eliminate it?  The answers to both are interwoven.

Far from ethical questions regarding free speech, the motivation for Jerry Falwell Jr. and his ilk is free money and lots of it.  If they were allowed to actively engage in partisan politics and still retain their charitable tax status they would become magnets for political contributions.

If I am David Koch with a few million dollars to drop on a issue or candidate, which is my better choice: a  PAC or Liberty University that would accomplish the same as the PAC only I’m able to get a 40% tax deduction?

A million dollar contribution, in that case, would only cost David $600,000. The remaining $400,000 is nicely picked up by the American Taxpayer (in lost tax revenue). It’d be a sweet deal for the Kochster, an even sweeter deal for Liberty University, and Trump (about as religious as Genghis Khan) gets the votes of the Christian devout. It's a sour deal for everyone else.

The ramifications of this effort to change our tax law to benefit the wealthy and concentrate wealth with America’s extreme voices are appalling.  It would be the biggest undermining of American Democracy since the Citizen’s United judgment.  Not only would there be a free-for-all of Charities entering the political process and the creation of phony “churches” with doctrines that are solely political, but it would further blur the secular nature of American government, abandoning the foundation on which this Nation was created.

Imagine, if you will, every political candidate having his/her own “church” or “churches” campaigning on their behalf and, by necessity, integrating their religion with their politics.

This Johnson Amendment, so named after Lyndon Johnson who as a Senator from Texas in the 1950s fought for its passage, is very important to the American people.  The charitable deduction, created in 1917, is nearly as old as the modern income tax itself.  It has evolved and survived primarily as an incentive to donors to assist charitable organizations with their beneficial purposes.

To combine the consolidation of political power within those purposes serves neither the Nation’s wellbeing nor its charitable spirit. It is just another reason why today’s Republican Party needs to be rejected and reborn.

Feel the Love

I first noticed it with the Democrats.  Hillary Clinton used it on more than one interview and public address, including her DNC acceptance speech. It was always preceded by the slightest little accenting pause. Now I’ve heard it emanating from, of all places, the muck fashioned lips of Donald Trump. I’m referring to the use of the term love.  What’s going on here?

It’s worth a thought. I struggle to remember any past politicians using the term love as an image to support their candidacy. Yet here we are, entering the final leg of perhaps the most unsophisticated and insolent Presidential contests in modern times and we hear the call to love.

Granted, the candidates do introduce the love from different directions, essentially from opposite corners.

Clinton and her surrogates have used it as a representation of what we need to add to our national consciousness in order to bring about the changes they advocate, especially regarding the treatment of illegal aliens.  Not really like singing the Beatles tune All You Need is Love, rather more like Mary Poppins suggesting we need to add Just a Spoon Full of Sugar.

Trump, on the other hand, is not advocating that love is missing from our collective body politic, quite the contrary.  He promotes the idea that the American people are just fine (at least the ones packing his rallies), but it’s those pesky fir-ah-ners wanting to get into this Country that need the love.  He actually implies the need for a love test (along with blood and religion, I assume) proving that they “love us”.

I suppose for Donald it would be perfectly fitting to have Cuba Gooding at the immigration line shouting “SHOW..ME..THE LOVE”, as he did with “money” in Jerry McGuire.  To the extent the applicants fist-bumped or high fived before they proceeded to their faith examination might be test enough.

Using love within in the context of rhetoric that more simply asks “vote for me” may be a metaphor for a darker side of these Presidential campaigns.

The Trump side is easy to see.  His authoritarian demand that immigrants to the US “love us” flies in the face of one of the dearest siren songs for Conservatives…Freedom.  It is precisely that we don’t demand to be loved that makes a free society so compelling, even if that freedom carries with it a potential for conflict. 

Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers is ostracized by “freedom loving” Conservatives as a personal affront to their patriotism, yet they fail to reflect an iota on the free part of freedom, which they should take pride in.  I’m guessing he wouldn’t gain admission to a Trump Nation regardless how well he threw a football.

Note that the absence of love is not hate; however the paradox is that the more you demand love the more potential there is to generate hate.

Clinton’s misappropriation of love is more subtle. The underlying theme when she suggests that love is a missing ingredient to the well being of Americans is a call to be better citizens, as if a tasteless cake that has been served up by our Government bakery is missing a touch of salt. She’s selling her own Progressive siren song that self-interest needs to be supplanted by compassion.

Although feeling the love may be a Progressive motivator and land on a few signs at a Bernie rally, it can be counter-productive to objective governance. The fact is that love, a strong and important driver of human behavior, is essentially another form of self-interest and can be used to undermine the freedom not to love.

The very fact that these candidates have chosen to include love in their arsenal of attack tools is a testimony to the rancor that has been this political season to date.

The great American experiment to create a secular nation of agreed upon laws that everyone can love without it (the Nation) demanding to be loved is not furthered by politicians advocating their candidacy as a call to devotion…for Americans or those who want to be.

Trumpilosis

I’ve said it before, even on this blog (you may have said it as well): I am sick of Trump. Such a statement may appear straight forward on the surface, but in looking deeper I wonder if perhaps this illness is the waxing side of a healing process.

If you’re like me, you’re sick of Trump not because of the man he is. Sure, I have become more incredulous weekly, even while believing each week that I couldn’t become more so. I am amazed how a man so blatantly unbalanced, so clinically narcissistic, and so unashamedly crude, could rise to the threshold he is currently at. 

Therein lies concern, perhaps even fear, but both have less to do with the mental queasiness that sweeps over me nearly each time I pick up a newspaper, magazine, or turn on my computer or TV. The man evokes responses of laughter to anger and all in between, but it’s his incessant presence that now induces nausea.

Think about the process you or I go through when we catch a viral infection.  It starts with a questioning awareness. Hmm…what is that feeling in my throat? It’s then followed with a struggling denial; it’s probably something I swallowed that scratched…please, please.  We’re then faced with acceptance, but cling to the hope that what we’re about to experience will be fleeting and non-consequential.  If it ends up bad, as it usually does, the whole event will occupy the biggest portion of our conscious awareness for days.

Now take that nasty cold (which everyone can relate to) and stretch it out proportionally over 16 months (June 16, 2015 to November 8, 2016) and you have what this Nation is experiencing with Donald Trump.

The first months of his run for office were filled with disregard, the only annoying little questions that popped up related to the extent of his following; a minor protest vote…perhaps… or just disgruntled talk radio yahoos? As the weeks passed it appeared he wasn’t a joke, even as he acted like a clown. Still, pundits and experts alike, especially Republicans, denied his candidacy was real, even as they speculated on the absurd outcome of his success.  It was notable that speculation was entirely on his possible success for the nomination, not his Presidency.

 Now we’re in full blown, snot-filled, gut-wrenching immersion of Trump and it’s everywhere. The rest of the news or even provincial conversation has become a backdrop to the subject of Trump.  If I tune to a TV or radio news station, or other talk entertainment I’ve begun to count the seconds before I hear the word Trump. It’s like waiting for your next cough. Watching Peppa Pig with my 3 year old granddaughter is like getting a little shot of nasal spray.

Trump, like a visit from an unwelcome disease, came in through the backdoor, fattened himself up a bit in the kitchen, and now he’s sprawled all over the living room. Even if we’re confident he’s eventually leaving, we would feel so much better if he was gone today.

I and others who share thoughts have contemplated the hole that will be left in a world without Trump. What will it be like when at the end of the day my son-in-law no longer says “…so let’s see what that idiot Trump has done today”? Will there be a collective sense of emptiness?

I am pleased to hypothesize that the analogy will hold true.

There are few non-event experiences we have in life that are more agreeable, in fact pleasurable, than the realization that we are no longer sick, even if our noses are still running a bit. The weather becomes unimportant, we focus on what’s good in people, and we feel empowered. When all is said and done, we simply have less fear.

I’m encouraged to believe that Donald Trump may be a most fortunate circumstance for Hillary Clinton. Not just in making her electability uncomplicated, but primarily in making her Presidency begin on such a positive note, much better than the so-called honeymoon periods afforded other Presidents.

When the nation realizes that the disease we might know as Trumpilosis no longer runs through our collective veins, when we can see the petty nature and misinformation that forms the basis for Hillary Clinton's detractors, when the Republican Party has purged much of the extreme right-wing from its Conservative viscera, when Obama can no longer be used as an emblematic excuse to block the work of Government, it very well may become a new healing for the Nation.

Democrat equality in Congress wouldn’t hurt either.

I believe that even though Hillary Clinton is not a naturally dynamic and competitive campaigner, it's because she is smart, because she is impassioned, because she's experienced, because she is connected, and because she is a woman that she has the potential of ushering in an era of good health. The likes of Trump will be forgotten as quickly as the Nyquil squirreled away in the medicine chest.

Hillary Revealed

Bill Clinton, the youngest President to retire from office since Theodore Roosevelt 90 years earlier, was prepared to engage the flip side of his life once he left Office, but not in politics. 

It is reasonable, though, to assume that Hillary had planned, at some level, a career in politics, and no wonder. Starting life in equal footing with her spouse, by all accounts with more cerebral firepower, then spending the next 21 years as a virtual lady-in-waiting, she was likely primed to realize in her own life the gender equality she had advocated for decades.

For Bill in the late 90s, he wanted to construct a vehicle that delivered tangible value, where the application of his time produced visible results as opposed to the blurred outcomes of government administration. The past 16 years have demonstrated the fact of the choice he made. If it had been to paint really bad pictures, I’m sure we would have seen those instead.

He chose to create a charitable organization that would provide assistance and relieve suffering for people whose needs were dire and whose distress transcended nationality.  Why he or anyone in a similar position decides to build a mechanism to help human beings for whom they have no responsibility doesn’t merit analysis.

In the last days of his Presidency Bill Clinton was asked in a formal interview why he allowed himself to do something so foolish and reckless as his backroom sexual encounters with Monica Lewinski.  He insightfully replied “…for the worst reason in the world, because I could.”  Safe to say, he chose to build the Clinton Foundation for the best reason in the world, because he could.  So goes the paradox of opportunity.

Some might admire the all too common televangelist who extracts, through guilt and fear, small dollars from the faithful of limited means. They then compile the dollars to create great edifices for their “church” and for themselves personally. I’m not one of them. 

I prefer to see the wealthy touched for big dollars to provide direct aid, with no one else benefited disproportionately.  It’s limited welfare and may provide more inspiration than solution, but without someone to instill the transfer it doesn’t happen.  Unlike the great philanthropists of our time (Bill Gates e.g.), Clinton managed it with simple influence.  The modest quid pro quos donors received (there are always quid pro quos, even if it’s just recognition) should hardly be a controversy, let alone a scandal.

Hillary Clinton has had minimal involvement with the Clinton Foundations, given the attention she paid to her political career.  She was not as a Tammy Faye to a Jim Bakker.  Even if there was some interaction between her as Senator or Secretary and the Foundations run by Bill Clinton, it doesn’t merit the outrage that Republicans have leveled or which the media has given deference to.

Show me how Hillary benefited personally from the Foundations, other than pride. Don’t hand me the bullshit about speaking fees. They would have made those regardless.  In a nation where LeBron James receives $100 million for shooting basketballs for 3 years or Carly Fiorina receives $100 million for driving a company into the dirt over a 5 year period (at least LeBron sinks his baskets), I’ve become numbed by outrageous earnings, and the Clintons are hardly standouts.

The fact that Republicans have decided to use the Clinton Foundation to play into the narrative that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, is a testimony to their own failed narrative of which Trump is the personification.

I will concede that if the only thing the Clinton Foundations did was to airdrop billions of bibles (in the appropriate translations) over desperate populations then there would be no useful controversy for the Republicans, even if the Clintons owned the companies that printed the books. However, the real story has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundations, since the work done by those foundations carries no weight for those who are quick to condemn the Clintons.

The real story has to with the unrevealed secret why Hillary is so inherently dishonest, why Conservatives across the country know she is not to be trusted, why Trump can pose (thumbs up) with a fan whose t-shirt reads “Hillary for Prison in 2016”, why anything she is or was involved in stinks of corruption, why her words by definition are suspicious, and why the only appropriate path for her is to “lock her up”…probably Guantanamo.

There is a reason that Republicans and the media treat this conniving, manipulative, and lying personality as an natural state of being for Hillary Clinton which I am going to reveal to you here:

Hillary Clinton is…a woman.

If Hillary Clinton were a man there is nothing I can think of; Benghazi, email, computer servers, and certainly not a successful charitable foundation that could have been used as distrustful, let alone as prison quality activities.

Trump has lied at levels never imagined possible among public figures, political or otherwise.  Just ask the thousands of New Jerseyites who celebrated 9/11. Politifact has him lying over being honest by a margin of 2 to 1, look it up! Yet we never hear him described as inherently dishonest, rather he is described as a man who is acting that way. The difference is that a man can change, but the woman cannot.

Women are burdened with the reality that for the Conservative mind, as with racial bias, if a woman strays from traditional female paths they can easily succumb to the stereotypical attributes of being something less than honorable.  Perfectly nice Conservatives I know, including women, will say to me “I know Trump is crazy, but I could never vote for that woman”. There is a reason why they say “woman” instead of person or her name.

How Americans react to Hillary’s candidacy as she runs against a dangerous nutcase, when her truthfulness is woefully attacked, will reveal just how far we’ve come in dealing with gender equality…or not.

Ecolems

Occasionally I feel I retained only one thing from my undergraduate degree in Economics, although it would bear me a valuable understanding over the years. Simply put it is this: Economics is not an exact science, it is a social science.

Despite what you might hear or infer from intellectuals, politicians, teachers or economists who present numbers, formulas and endless analysis about cause and effect (with abundant certitudes), it’s really just about human behavior, with all the mystification you might assign to your crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

In that sense applied Economics as a discipline struggles with predictability... and predictability is the key to economic success or the lack of it its failure.  What could be less conducive to predictability than fear driven human behavior.

Two examples: I have a truly lovely friend who bristles at hearing the word welfare, let alone discussing it, because she is so certain of its negativity.  Or dropped onto any city street or town square and it would take me only seconds to find a person who knows that taxes are bad, by definition!

 These folks find themselves in a bubble of shared identity with others of like mind who vacillate wildly due to misunderstanding or lack of education. They are ripe pickings for pundits and/or preachers who, to promote their own self interest, insulate them from diverse views.

I’ll call these good folks Economic Lemmings or, say…Ecolems.

The bubbles that exist in the American culture today, which house our Ecolems, have never been so distinct.  One can speculate on historical comparisons, but due to technology, the nature of communication today has no precedent.  People have always lived in bubbles of a sort, but never have the bubbles been so big.

Economic certitudes are often combined with regional identity, religious affiliations, or provincial history.  All of a sudden, notably since the turn of this new century, Republicans and Democrats have become Red America and Blue America. This must feel similar to the not-so United States in the 1850s.

To use the immortal words of Donald Trump; what the hell is going on? Donald, you know exactly what’s going on, as your followers are comprised entirely of Ecolems.

Let’s look at the two economic issues mentioned above and see how the Ecolems respond; welfare and taxes, which are not mutually exclusive.

Welfare quite simply is the transfer of resources from one person to another without a transaction between the two taking place, although there is an implied benefit for both parties.  It makes no difference of the economic station of either party and a gift meets the definition.  It is everything from Social Security, to Church kitchens, to section 8 housing, to food stamps, to evangelical missions, or to boomerang children.

The controversy comes with the inclusion of choice.  My Ecolem friend thinks charity is great, even though that’s still welfare (shhh…don’t tell her). To think (as she does) that we can leave issues of poverty and homelessness up to churches shows that her understanding of the economics of welfare doesn’t extend beyond her middle class neighborhood.

The idea that strangers are at the receiving end of a transfer handled by a third party has become an anathema for her.  She cannot see the purposes of the transfer even though she is potentially a beneficiary…she gets to live in a society with less deprivation, more opportunity, and probably less crime.

Instead of questioning the quality or efficiency of the transfer she prefers to embrace the certitude that welfare is just plain bad, mostly because she perceives the unworthiness of the recipient. She’ll follow the advice of like minded preachers even though it leads her to an ocean bluff. 

When more people survive economically everyone benefits. The fewer…then everyone bears the cost. Think health care.

This flight from economic awareness is even more prevalent when it comes to taxes.

So complete has the concept of taxation been defined by those who are most affected (i.e. the rich) that it’s as if each American at birth were issued a gun with the sole purpose of shooting themselves in the foot when they reach the age of majority.

The reality is that the concentration of wealth is the single biggest drag on economic growth. Ironically, it negatively affects the future wealthy along with everybody else.

Wealth concentration, contrary to Republican BS, does not create jobs. Think social or human behavior.  People, including the wealthy, tend to flip from production to protection of wealth once it’s accumulated.  Money is effectively pulled out of the economy and primarily used as an investment tool for accumulating more wealth with the dangerous use of speculation.

In 1993 with a large Democratic majority Bill Clinton pushed through and signed into law one of the biggest tax increases on the wealthy in modern history (The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993). His eight year term in office ended with spectacular economic success, including economic growth, budget surpluses, record employment, and low inflation to name a few.

In 2001 George W. Bush, with a slight Republican majority in Congress, passed his EGTERRA (aka Bush Tax Cuts), the largest tax cut for the wealthy in the history of the Country, then followed with immense government spending into limited markets (military e.g.) which further concentrated wealth.  The Conservative Heritage Foundation predicted these cuts would eliminate the National Debt in 9 years. Bush’s eight years ended with near total economic collapse of the Nation, record unemployment, and massive debt…oops.

The continuation of these cuts under the Obama Administration is a primary reason why the economic recovery since 2008 has been so slow, since it has had to rely chiefly on debt.

There are many supporting factors that relate to these Administration’s successes and failures. Nevertheless, taxes properly leveled and revenue properly applied are the single biggest engines for economic growth because they reduce inequality of wealth, generate spending, and (hopefully) reduce debt.

You could read the conclusions of Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz (and others) to Ecolems all day.  No matter.  Ecolems know all taxes are bad and will vote for anyone who wants to cut them or oppose anyone who suggests taxing the wealthy. The Ecolems oddly have no problem submitting to consumption taxes (sales tax e.g.) which puts the revenue burden squarely on the non-wealthy.  They march dutifully to the cliff’s edge, even with all those holes in their feet.

As Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed, an immense public works effort to update US infrastructure would be an economic boom for the Country. However, the revenue source cannot be debt nor taxation of the lower and middle classes.  This needs to be borne by the top 20% and mostly from the top 2% based on income and net worth.  Everyone would benefit, but interesting the top 20% would still benefit the most.

Vote Republican and you’ll never see it happen.

There is nothing inherently wrong with inequality; in fact we’re better off because of it since it promotes the predictability of hard work and ingenuity. However, when it gets extreme as it has today, human nature takes over. The economy begins to feed on itself by economic growth yielding to the incessant concentration of wealth by the rich. The Ecolems continue their march to the sea