All posts by Dr. ESP

Rule of Three

Politics

The rule of three is a writing principle which suggests that a trio of entities such as events or characters is more humorous, satisfying, or effective than other numbers. The audience of this form of text is also thereby more likely to remember the information conveyed because having three entities combines both brevity and rhythm with having the smallest amount of information to create a pattern.

~Wikipedia

I thought about the rule of three as I prepared for a one-on-one breakfast with the LaShonda Holloway (she goes by L.J.), the Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida’s Fourth District.  What were the three things I could share with her which exhibited the “brevity and rhythm” that would resonate with voters?  I am sharing them with you because they also apply to any conversation you might have with voters who are open to NEW information about the candidates.

  1. Do not run against who your opponent is.  Run against what he/she says and does.  In L.J.’s case she is running against Aaron Bean, a member of a multi-generational, well-connected local family.  A representative of each of the last three generations has been elected mayor  of Fernandina Beach.  They also have been major contributors to many civic projects. But as our Congressman, Aaron has no legislative accomplishments and says or does something stupid almost every day.
    On his website, he says REPUBLICANS forced Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle to resign, ignoring the fact ranking member of the Oversight Committee Jamie Raskin (D-MD) also signed the letter.  He said the assassination attempt against Donald Trump was horrific and unacceptable, but refuses to condemn the violence on January 6, 2021.  He accuses Joe Biden of appeasing Hamas but voted against aid to Ukraine.  It is not who Aaron is; it is what he has become since hitching his star to Trump and the MAGA agenda.
    The reason for taking a similar approach to Trump is just the opposite.  He was never a decent human being.  But everyone already knows that; so why waste time or money trying to convince those who do not care.  Focus on what he says as evidenced by his remarks Friday at the Turning Point Summit.  According to NPR, he told the Christian gathering this was the only election that mattered.  “You won’t have to do it anymore.  Four more years, you know what?  It’s fixed, it’ll be fine.  You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”  A WTF moment if there was one.  Only Trump could promise Americans will become both a dictatorship and theocracy in one sentence.
  2. Attack the fear factor.  Trump and his MAGA lemmings tell you armed IRS agents are going to show up on your front porch.  That the FBI is going to conduct pre-dawn raids at your house.  That immigrants are going to kill you.  Whenever or wherever someone makes those claims, ask them, “How many of you have had an armed-IRS agent show up at your door?”  The answer, of course, is none. You know why?  First, IRS auditors don’t carry guns, and second, they only go after people when there is probable cause that they cheated on their returns.  “How many of you have been subjected to an FBI raid?”  Again, no one raises their hands.  Maybe because you are not concealing classified documents or destroyed evidence in a criminal case. Finally, if Trump and the MAGAverse are so concerned about immigrant crime, why did they block the toughest border security proposal in U.S. history?  Must not be that big an issue.  However, the misguided 20-year-old who took a shot at Trump was not an immigrant.  The shooters at New Town and Uvalde were not immigrants.  The mass murderers in Orlando, Las Vegas, Charleston, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and El Paso were not immigrants.  The insurrectionists that beat up police protecting the nation’s capitol were not immigrants.  What about them?
  3. When talking about the difference between Democrats and MAGA candidates, be specific and make it personal.  It is easy to attack Project 2025 by reciting the laundry list of bad ideas contained in the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration.
    Read the audience.  Pick one topic in Project 2025 that is most likely to resonate with them.  If they have children in Head Start programs tell them that it will cost them an average of $8,200/year in daycare if the program is eliminated.  If they are salaried workers, focus on the Project 2025 tax proposal.  Tell them if they make $100,000/year, their taxes will increase by $4,118 compared to the current tax code while a household making $1 million/year will save $23,625.  Ask an elderly audience how many are worried about long-term health care and spend the rest of the time on what it means if Trump, et. al. eliminate or reduce Medicaid benefits.  And again, make it VERY personal. Point to the audience and remind them, “YOU and YOU and YOU would have to pay…”

One can only hope the rule of three applies to the trifecta of female candidates on the ballot in Florida’s 4th Congressional District:  Vice President Kamala Harris, Rick Scott opponent Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, and L.J. Holloway.

POSTSCRIPT: A GOOD WEEK

It’s a good week when Friday’s Wall Street Journal includes the headline, “Harris Erases Trump’s Lead, WSJ Poll Finds.”  However, the better news is that Americans know when politicians don’t believe what they are saying.  And sadly, since the June 27 debate, defense of Joe Biden’s chances in November came off as unauthentic.

That is no longer the case.  There is no better evidence than the appearance by former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu on Sunday’s edition of MSNBC’s “The Weekend.”  Prior to Biden’s announcement last Sunday, Landrieu, who is a co-chair of the now Harris National Campaign, would talk about the party’s ground game as the antidote for the president’s disaster in the first (and maybe the last) debate between the two major party nominees.  This morning he talked in terms of using the field offices and volunteers to make sure the momentum and enthusiasm Harris brings to the ticket will translate into votes on November 5.

And this time, you could tell he actually believed they would.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Head Fart

Economics, Politics

Here they go again.  Just when you thought the Heritage Foundation “geniuses” at Project 2025 who proposed a two-tier regressive system increasing taxes for lower and middle class Americans while giving the wealthy new and deeper tax cuts, wait until you see their plan to reduce opportunities for early childhood education.  Not only do they want to get rid of Head Start, they want the beneficiaries to pay for making it go away.  From page 482 in “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership”:

Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion, the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite. In fact, “approximately 1 in 4 grant recipients had incidents in which children were abused, left unsupervised, or released to an unauthorized person between October 2015 and May 2020.”68 Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded.

The identified endnote #68 is found on page  501.

Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start.  Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022.

You might wonder, “Who is Madison Marino?”  She is according to the Heritage Foundation website, “a Senior Research Associate for the Heritage Center for Education Policy.”  And the cited article originally appeared in The Daily Signal, which, though legally separate from the Heritage Foundation, has many of the same donors and relies heavily on Heritage staff for content.  To recap, a conservative think-tank justifies a call to end Head Start based on an article by a member of its own staff published in a legally separate, but allied, publication.  To quote Captain Renault (Claude Raines) in Casablanca, “I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on in here!”

Of course Head Start has flaws and there are instances of people gaming the system in every federal program.  Ask the major corporations that received a total of $530 million in SBA loans after 9/11.  The question is, “Would the Heritage geniuses have come to a different conclusion if they had read a June 2019 report by the Brookings Institute which looked at the long term impacts of the program?”  Their conclusion draws heavily on a January 2018 study by economics professor Andrew Barr (Texas A&M) and education professor Chloe Gibbs (Notre Dame) titled, “Breaking the cycle?  Intergenerational Effects of an Anti-Poverty Program in Early Childhood.”  Brookings summarized their work as follows.

New research by Gibbs and Barr finds intergenerational effects of Head Start along the same lines of the Heckman work – the children of those who were exposed to Head Start saw reduced teen pregnancy and criminal engagement and increased educational attainment.

By the way, the operational issues identified in Project 2025 come from a September 2022 report by Suzann Murrin, deputy inspector general of Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services in which the department calls for more oversight to address these concerns.  Dare I say, in contrast, the tag line for the Project 2025 proposal should be, “Throwing out the baby’s education with the bathwater.”

But wait.  The impact on low-income families also has a financial dimension.  Eligible low-income beneficiaries do not pay for their children to participate in Head Start programs.  If the program is eliminated, those same families would be saddled with daycare expenses for the six hours/day previous covered via Head Start (the average length of a daily Head Start program).  What does that mean in out-of-pocket expenses?

CARE.COM reports that the average cost of childcare per child in 2024 ranges from $766/week (nanny) to $321 (daycare) to $230 (family care center) to $192 (babysitter).  Since most Head Start programs do not run through the summer, a family with one child would now face nine months (36 weeks) of childcare expenses.  Under the family care center option that equals $8,280/year.  Keep in mind, that is per child.

So let’s run the numbers.  The non-profit National Head Start Association reports there were approximately 809,000 children enrolled in Head Start in FY2024.  The federal Head Start budget for the same year was $11 billion.  Therefore to save $11 billion dollars (.0016 of one percent of the total federal budget), those “UNreal men of genius” who want to raise taxes on lower income Americans want to add $6.7 billion/year of out-of-pocket expenses on those who can least afford it.  Not to mention (but of course I will), as of July 2020, 17 states controlled by MAGA governors and legislatures impose work requirements on individuals who apply for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits.  Once again, the party that promotes the “traditional family” as the elixir for all that ails America promotes policies that do just the opposite. 

Someone needs to tell J. D. Vance that legislation to eliminate Head Start should forever be known as the “How to Discourage Motherhood and Create Homes for Cats Act of 2025.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The GOP’s Recessive Gene

Economics, Politics

Before January 6, 2021, there was another “big lie.”  Republicans repeatedly told us that they are the guardians of the U.S. economy.  Yet, according to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research, there have been 11 recession since 1953 of which 10 took place during Republican administrations.  Consider the following.

  • During the Eisenhower administration (1953-61), there were THREE recessions with a combined duration of 28 months.  The peak unemployment rate rose to 7.4 percent.  Chronologically, gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 2.7, 3.7, and 1.6 percent during each of the three downturns.
  • During the Kennedy/Johnson administration (1961-65), there were NO recessions.
  • During the Johnson administration (1965-69), there were NO recessions.
  • During the Nixon/Ford administration (1969-1977), there were TWO recessions with a combined duration of 27 months.  The peak unemployment rate was 8.6 percent.  GDP declined by 0.6 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively.
  • During the Carter administration (1977-1981), there was ONE recession with a duration of 6 months.  Peak unemployment was 7.8 percent and GDP declined by 2.2 percent.
  • During the Reagan administration (1981-1989), there was ONE recession with a duration of 16 months.  Peak unemployment was 10.8 percent and GDP declined by 2.9 percent.
  • During the George H. W. Bush administration (1989-1993), there was ONE recession of eight months duration.  The peak unemployment was 6.8 percent and GDP declined by 1.5 percent.
  • During the Clinton administration (1993-2001) there were NO recessions.
  • During the George H. Bush administration (2001-2009), there were TWO recessions of combined 26 months duration.  The peak unemployment rate was 9.5 percent and GDP declined by 0.3 and 4.3 percent, respectively.
  • During the Obama administration (2009-2017), there were NO recessions.
  • During the Trump administration (2017-2021), there was ONE recession with a duration of two months.  The peak unemployment rate was 14.7 percent.
  • During the Biden administration (2021- present), there have been NO recessions.

To recap, since 1953, there have been five Republican administrations with a total of 10 recessions.  Over the same period, there has been six Democratic administrations with only one recession.   The combined duration of GOP recessions is 117 months compared to six months for Democratic presidents.

There has not been a single recession during the past three Democratic administrations spanning 19.5 years in the White House.  In contract, there has not been a single Republican administration in the past 71 years without at least one recession.  In terms of impact, Republican recessions are longer in duration and have higher average peak unemployment.

One of the great mysteries of life is why the CEOs of so many major U.S. corporations continue to back the party that seems to have recession built into their DNA.  Perhaps, Forrest Gump provides the best explanation.  “Stupid is as stupid does.”  Or as George Constanza advised Jerry Seinfeld how to beat a polygraph test, “If YOU believe it, it’s not a lie.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Cheating 101

Politics

If at first you don’t succeed, cheat!

~Elijah Barns/The Witch and Jet Splinters

The above quote comes from a series of fantasy books about the partnership between a black cat (Jet Splinters) and Jinny Lane (the witch).  Their goal?  To prevent an unscrupulous developer from building a golf course on land they consider to be sacred.  Before you ask, this is not another tell-all book by one of Donald Trump’s associates.  However, it could be a metaphor how, in January 2021, he tried to construct a false monument to himself on the sacred landscape of American democracy.  You decide whether Mike Pence would be type cast as the witch or the black cat.

Closer to home, Barns’ quote applies also to the state of Florida. Remember, Governor Ron DeSantis and the MAGA-dominated state legislature claim to be the law and order party, except of course, when the law needs a little tweaking or outright trashing to achieve their ideological priorities.  This was most evident when, on November 6, 2018, 65 percent of voters approved Amendment 4, which reads:

This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

For the record, the definition of criminal sentence, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, reads, “the term of imprisonment or probation imposed on a convicted defendant for criminal wrongdoing.”  That must have been good enough for the State of Florida because there were no statutes which provided an alternative definition.  That is, of course, until passage of Amendment 4, at which time the governor and state legislature said, “The voters be damned.  We ain’t gonna let all those felons vote in our state.”  To accomplish their objective, the legislature passed and DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 signed in June 2019.  The act added Section 98.0751, which included the following, more expansive definition of “sentencing.”

Full payment of fines or fees ordered by the court as a part of the sentence or that are ordered are ordered by the court as a condition of any form of supervision, including, but not limited to, probation, community control, or parole.

These fees include the $50/day charged for prison stays beginning on the day of conviction and ending on the last day of the court ordered sentence, even if the inmate is subject to early release.  Since most inmates cannot pay the fee while in prison, it accrues as “a cost of incarceration lien.”  If on probation, a convicted felon may be subject to a supervision fee and required to reimburse the state for drug testing, electronic monitoring and instruction programs.  It is not hard to imagine these accrued obligations can take years, if not forever, to pay off.

Call it whatever you want, but changing the rules after a winner has been declared is cheating in my book.  This year we have a new Amendment 4, and DeSantis is at it again with the upcoming vote in November to provide a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability.  Polling suggests the measure could garner the 60 percent majority needed for passage.  This time, DeSantis, et. al., decided not to wait until the outcome to undercut voters.

The text of the propose amendment is pretty straight forward.

Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The exception refers to a requirement under current law that parents of a minor be notified if their child seeks an abortion unless a waiver is provided by a state court.

You must be really creative to find a way to cheat on this one.  But that did not stop DeSantis and opponents of the measure.  Under the administrative rules for constitutional referenda, the proposed amendment must be accompanied by financial impact statement which estimates potential revenues and expenses if the proposal is approved.  State law designates a panel called the Financial Impact Estimate Conference to draft the impact statement.  Florida Statute 216.138 defines the Conference members as follows.

  • A representative from the Executive Office of the Governor
  • A representative from the Senate’s professional staff
  • A representative from the House of Representatives’ professional staff
  • The coordinator of the Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research, or their designee 
Following release of an initial impact statemen that stated the financial impact of Amendment 4 was “indeterminate,”  Governor DeSantis and House Speaker Paul Renner appointed additional members to the panel who voted to change the language appearing on the November ballot.  The new language suggests passage would result in:
  •  A reduction of education services.
  • An overall reduction in fertility rates reducing federal funding.
  • A worse credit rating affecting Florida’s fiscal output.

“Yes on 4,” the organization leading the campaign to pass the amendment, has challenged the new language because Speaker Renner’s 11th hour appointment was ineligible for membership on the impact panel.  Rachel Greszler, is not a member of the House’s professional staff as required by statute.  Are you ready?  Greszler is a member of the Heritage Foundation, and according to the Washington Post, (drum roll) “a contributing author to that group’s controversial Project 2025 plan.”

So, speaking of amendments, if Elijah Barns decides to publish a subsequent volume in his The Witch and Jet Splinters saga, he may want to revise the quote to read:

If at first, you believe you are not going to succeed, cheat!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Maybe They Are Right

Random Thoughts

I continue to be surprised how many people who have read my book In the National Interest ask me, “Do you believe it was possible that Kennedy ordered his own assassination?”  I even had one reader ask me, “How did you, of all people, get possession of that journal?”  On Facebook and Reddit sites dedicated to the assassination, I constantly have to remind commenters who want to poke holes in the narrative that it is a work of fiction, not intended to solve the crime of the 20th century.

This morning, based on efforts by the MAGAverse to put the brakes on Kamala Harris’ game-changing entry into the 2024 presidential sweepstakes, I wondered if there was room for one more work of conspiratorial fiction.  Was this mastermind Joe Biden’s last act, eclipsing his rigging the outcome of Super Bowl LVIII?  Another saga in which the mystery is not “who dunnit” but “how dunnit?”

I, therefore, offer for your imagination In the National Interest Redux by Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.  President Biden has only forwarded the preface to me, but promises to send the complete story to be offered as a serial.

PREFACE
Wednesday, November 6, 2024

Dare I say, “Mission Accomplished!”  On January 20, 2025, Kamala Harris will take the oath as 47th president of the United States.  The first woman and second person of color to occupy the Oval Office.  No surprise, Donald Trump has yet to concede even though the final vote tally represents a larger Democratic margin of victory than 2020.  And the MAGA conspiracy machine is in fifth gear.  Of course, their malarky theories cover all the usual bases.  Corrupted voting machines.  Fake Harris and destroyed Trump ballots.  Foreign interference.

If only they knew the truth.  They are half right.  There was a conspiracy, a grand one in fact.  It was launched years before the election and had nothing to do with when and how people voted.  That is the beauty of a truly great conspiracy.  Get the victim to focus on the wrong things, especially when he fancies himself as a master of misdirection.  I laughed when Trump, immediately following my announcement that I would withdraw from the race, threatened to sue the DNC.  He claimed his campaign had wasted millions of dollars running against me when I had always planned to step aside.  A classic case of the fraud calling the bluffer black.  Donald, you’re getting warmer than you imagine.

Let me take you back to the beginning, January 20, 2021.  When Donald and Melania Trump never invited Jill and me to the White House and said he would not attend the inauguration, I knew he would not ride off into the sunset.  If you are someone who picked up this book, you already know that is who he is.  Therefore, 2020 was not a one-off.  We would have to defeat him again, and this time, he would up his game of fear, lies and misinformation.  He would have four years to build a case against me and my record, regardless of our success or failure.  We, too, needed a four-year strategy.

Now, you may find this hard to believe, but back in 2020, at age 77, I knew I was old.  And I knew if I wanted to run again in 2024 at 81, I would be even older.  That is why I suggested on several occasions, one term was enough to do the things I hoped to do.  Save the country from a second Trump term.  Bring us back from the pandemic.  Restore the United States’ reputation as leader of the free world.  And lay the foundation for the next generation of American leaders, hopefully Democratic ones.

I also knew, to defeat Trump again, we needed to rely on the same coalition of minority voters, progressives and educated suburban voters to counter any increase in my predecessor’s recruitment of cult followers and believers who wished for a return to their delusional memories of a “simpler time.”

One more thing you might find hard to believe.  I did not pick Kamala Harris to be my running mate.  Donald Trump did, unwittingly of course, but that’s a given.  Although she did not win the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton had been right about what a Trump administration would mean.  Especially, appointments to the Supreme Court and the danger to women’s rights, years before the Dobbs decision.  By putting Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett on the Court, it was Trump who created the backlash that assured time had come for a female chief executive.

Then I had to do my part.  Which is why, on August 11, 2020, I announced the Biden/Harris ticket.  Thus began the journey which brought us to this moment.  However, before I share the details, I need to correct something I wrote previously.  This may have been a grand scheme, but it was no conspiracy.  A conspiracy requires the collaboration of two or more people.  Prior to this account, no one, not family, close advisors or even Kamala, knew this was the plan from day one.  I may be old,  but I can still protect a secret, classified or not.

TO BE CONTINUED
Dr. ESP