Monthly Archives: January 2021

I Am Still No Fan

Politics

 

This one will be short and sweet. I promise.

Yes, I am glad Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger rejected Donald Trump’s effort to illegally overturn the certified vote count during the November election.  But he is no saint nor model citizen nor a profile in courage. Two data points.

First, Raffensperger said he had no intention of releasing the tape UNTIL Trump tweeted lies about him.  A moral individual, the minute he hung up the phone, would have called the Georgia attorney general and told him the president violated state election law and Trump threatened him if he did not break the law in support of the GOP lies and conspiracy theories.

Second, this morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” George Stephanopoulos asked Raffensperger, having had this experience, would he vote for Trump again.  The right answer is not, “No.”  It’s, “HELL NO!”  Instead, Raffensperger said he has always supported Republicans and “probably always will,” but that Trump isn’t on the 2024 ballot, “so we’ll just have to wait and see what would happen.”

So what is his motive for standing up to Trump?  Not a belief Trump is staging a bloodless coup, for which he is an ear witness, and needs to be stopped.  He acts only when he is concerned about his own criminal liability if he violates his oath of office.  He only speaks up when his well-being is at risk, physically or politically.  How does that make him any different than Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz or any other member of the dirty, seditious dozen?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Fringe on Top

Media

 

I’ll make this follow-up to the December 24, 2020 post “Gullibles Travels” short and sweet.

Yesterday I received an email from a trusted and respected friend in which he echoed some of the right-wing fringe propaganda about the recent COVID relief legislation.  Concerned that Congress had used the health crisis to pass a plethora of non-germane items, he forwarded an email which began, “A COVID relief bill should be for COVID RELIEF. It should be focused on the American People, who have spent the better part of a year struggling and hurting.”

For the record, nothing was attached to a COVID Relief Act.  Quite the opposite.  The relief provisions and appropriations related to the pandemic were attached to the Consolidated Budget Act of 2021 as Division M.  It is 100 pages of the 5,593 page omnibus bill which funds every federal agency (with the exception of the Defense Department), clearly labeled as such in the Table of Contents as Divisions A through L.  (Example:  DIVISION A—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021.)

After I pointed out this email was just one more example of “Gullibles Travels,” my friend responded, “Really should be a law that limits a bill to one subject at a time or requires a statement that it includes multiple items.”  No argument with the first part of his concern.  It would be nice if congressional rules forbade non-germane amendments to bills.  But that is not the case, and unfortunately such additions are often the only way to garner enough votes to assure passage. (The technical term for this practice is “logrolling.”)  The second half of the sentence is an entirely different matter.  Section 2: Table of Contents is a detailed outline of the legislation.  To ensure the reader understood this was merely a compilation of separate appropriations bills, Section 3: References reads, “Except as expressly provided otherwise, any reference to ‘this Act’, contained in any division of this Act shall be treated as referring only to the provisions of that division.”

Now, I do not expect anyone other than policy wonks such as myself to put down their copy of the latest potboiler to peruse a 5593 page piece of legislation.  But it does beg the question, “Where are normal people getting this misinformation?”  This morning I got my answer.

On page B2 of today’s Washington Post and its website there is an article by Paul O’Donnell titled, “Dalai Lama’s reincarnation ends up in Congress’ $900 relief bill.” The lead paragraph states:

Among the hodgepodge of legislative loose ends that made their way into the $900 billion spending bill signed by President Trump on Sunday night was a significant update to the 18-year-old Tibetan Policy Act, strengthening U.S. support for Tibetan autonomy and religious freedom for followers of Tibetan Buddhism around the world.

Furthermore, the writer claims that the provision pops up under something called the Tibetan Policy and Support Act, a phrase that does not appear in the bill’s language.  So what is the truth?  On page 2627 of the bill, Section 618 covers “Diplomatic Representation Relating to Tibet,” which authorizes the establishment of a U.S. consulate in Lhasa, Tibet.  Among the objectives for opening the consulate are assurances in support of “the aspirations of the Tibetan people.”  Subsection (7)(a) states:

…oppose any effort by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to select, educate, and venerate Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders in a manner inconsistent with the principle that the succession or identification of Tibetan Buddhist lamas, including the Dalai Lama, should occur without interference, in a manner consistent with traditional practice; (page 2630)

Therefore, Mr. O’Donnell is half right.  The act does include language to protect the status of the Dalai Lama.  But it appears on page 2630 when all provisions of the COVID Relief Act/Division M are contained in pages 1815 through 1915.  If a Washington Post reporter cannot get it right, how can we expect anything different from those who look to major mainstream media for their understanding of current events?

All good blogs require an analogy.  During the impeachment debate, the question arose, “Is the president of United States a Russian agent or is he just an unwitting tool of Vladimir Putin?”  The same can be said of the media based on this example.  Do they unwittingly bring fringe lies and conspiracy theories into the mainstream or do they have a more nefarious agenda?  This morning on MSNBC, Ali Velshi asked a New York Times reporter how she thought her job might change after January 20th.  She admitted, “My bias is toward chaos.”  Too bad her answer was not, “My bias is keeping readers informed honestly and accurately.”

Finally, I apologize for the length of this post.  I guess it was not as short and sweet as I intended. But, if you want people to understand what is real and what is not, you need to take the time and effort to explain it to them.  If not, you become complicit in the dumbing down of America.  And those who promote fringe views of the world end up on top of it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

UNhidden Figures

Economics, Politics

Many times, things that are easy to measure are unimportant, and things that are important are hard to measure.

~Michie Slaughter

MICHIE SLAUGHTER Obituary (1941 - 2014) - Kansas City StarThe above quote was made in reference to understanding the impact of charitable investments (i.e. grants, research and programs) by the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership for which Slaughter served as its first president.  I was reminded of this warning as I watched the on-going congressional deadlock over the size of COVID-19 stimulus checks.  My first epiphany was I had often paid attention to only half of what my colleague and friend was trying to tell us.  Being a trained empirical social scientist, my focus had been on data collection and analytical methodology.  But that was just one side of the equation.  Too often I assumed I already knew what was important.  But in this case I was not so sure.  In other words, one needs not only to establish the method by which something is measured, but the why.  Why would anyone want to expend time and effort measuring something in the first place?

As is so often the case, coming up with the right answer depends first on asking the right question.  In this case, the debate in Washington centered on the size of the checks, the current $600 per eligible recipient versus the proposed increase to $2,000 per recipient. In both the initial CARES Act last March and the recently passed COVID Relief Act, eligibility was defined as $75,000 of total adjusted income for a single individual and $150,000 for a married couple filing jointly for the 2019 tax year.  This information is easily obtained from Line 8b of the 2019 IRS Form 1040.

If this was the only available metric one could argue it makes sense.  Unless you ask another question.  Does this data point tell you who is most in need of supplemental income during the current economic recession?  To answer that question you need to examine the range of revenue streams which make up total adjusted income.

  • Line 1: Wages, salaries, tips, etc.
  • Line 2a: Tax-exempt interest
  • Line 3a: Qualified dividends
  • Line 4a: IRA Distributions
  • Line 4c: Pensions and annuities
  • Line 5a: Social security benefits
  • Line 6: Capital gain (or loss)
  • Line 7: Other income

Now, think about which of these subcategories are most likely to be affected by an economic slowdown.  The stock market has more than recovered from the March 2020 crash; so your qualified dividends and capital gains more likely rose in 2020.  Mandated 2021 IRA distributions should also increase as the value of an IRA account also grew this past year.  Social security payments are unaffected, increasing one percent for 2021.  And most pensions and annuities are likely to remain relatively stable.

This information already exists for every American taxpayer and is readily retrievable with a flick of a switch.  So, if the goal is to help the most vulnerable, we now have both the desired outcome and a trove of data.  The final task is to determine the weight of each data point to achieve that outcome.

This is not rocket science, but I find it hard to believe if mathematicians and analysts can program a reusable rocket to land on a platform at sea or instruct a space probe to retrieve dust from an asteroid traveling at  63,000/hour, there is not an algorithm that would match the mission of aiding those most in need of supplemental income.  Consider the following as one approach.

The $600 stimulus checks are history; so, let’s leave them out of the equation and focus on the currently proposed $1,400 per eligible recipient which is projected to cost $460 billion. Let’s call that the “relief pool”.  Using the established benchmarks for total adjusted income of $75k/individual filer and $150k/joint filers, approximately 153 million Americans would be entitled to a “share” of the “relief pool.”  However, not all shares would have the same value.  For example, someone whose entire total adjusted income came from wages or salary (Line 1 of their 2019 return) would receive a full share.  At the other extreme, the share of someone whose total revenues resulted from other than earned income (e.g. dividends, pensions, social security) would have no value as they are likely unaffected at all by the downturn.  For the record, our household falls into this second category, and we are fine with that.

The shares of all other filers would be equal to a percentage of income derived from all non-earned income sources (Lines 2a-6) divided by total adjusted income (Line 8b).  If the $460 billion appropriation is used, each non-zero shareholder would get a proportionate share of the pool with one exception.  No individual would be entitled to more than their total earned income in 2019.  For example, even if a full share was worth $5,000, an individual or joint filer with $3,000 in wages and salaries, would only be eligible for the latter amount.

Is the formula perfect?  Probably not.  The specifics should be subject to the usual policy debates.  The amount of the total “relief pool” can also be addressed.  What is not arguable is the fact the data to test this formula and alternatives is readily available.  All we need is the right people developing the corresponding algorithms.  Where are Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson and Katherine Johnson (the original “hidden figures”) when we really need them?

POSTSCRIPT:  I cannot leave this discussion without commenting on Miser Mitch McConnell’s description of the $2,000 stimulus checks as “socialism for rich people.”  In the style of a Shakespeare sonnet, “How wrong can Mitch be; let me count the ways.”  There is no coordinated production, public or cooperative ownership of capital as Karl Marx described.  There is no redistribution of wealth based on the principle “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.”  If anything, Mitch is the leading proponent of reverse socialism, cutting the social safety net while giving massive tax breaks to the rich.  This morning’s news featured a number of stories about food lines where volunteers were serving holiday meals.  I wonder how many of these aid recipients asked,  “Do I get tax-deductible martinis with this?”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP