Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Liz Cheney Loves Traitors

Liz Cheney Loves Traitors

Dick Cheney lied a lot so I guess his daughter feels compelled to do the same:

So I would just ask people to remember that they have failed despite the fact that they had a process that basically put everything tilted in their direction. The Democrats were able to act as judge and prosecutor. The Democrats were able to select every single witness. The Democrats were able to prevent, and did prevent, witnesses from answering Republican questions. The Democrats decided what the American people would see and when. The Democrats decided the timing on the release of important pieces of transcripts, they still have not released the transcript of the IC Inspector General, and so the Democrats essentially stacked the deck in their favor and despite the fact that they did this, and even with every unfair advantage and unprecedented advantage they gave themselves, including preventing the President from having any access to the proceedings, preventing his counsel from having any participation in the proceedings, they now have come out of this and fundamentally failed to prove their case.

My Lord – more whining about the process? And yes the case was proven overwhelmingly. There is a lot more BS in her little rant but who gives a damn what she said. Why is she defending a traitor? Oh wait PlameGate:

Comments (0) | |

Live-blogging the Fifteenth Amendment: December 7, 1868

Live-blogging the Fifteenth Amendment: December 7, 1868

In the Senate:

“Mr. Craving asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: . . .

“No State shall deny the right of suffrage or abridge the same to any male citizens of the United States twenty-one years of age or upwards except for participation in rebellion or other crime and also excepting Indians not taxed; but any State may exact of such citizen a specific term of residence as a condition of voting therein, the condition being the same for all classes.”

. . . .

“Mr. Pomeroy asked and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: . . .

“The basis of suffrage in the United States shall be that of citizenship, and all native or naturalized citizens shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of the elective franchise; but each State shall determine by law the age of the citizen and the time of residence required for the exercise of the right of suffrage, which shall apply equally to all citizens, and also shall make all laws concerning the time, places, and manner of holding elections.”

——
In the House of Representatives:
“Mr. Kelley introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . .

“No State shall deny to or exclude from the exercise of any of the rights or privileges of an elector any citizen of the United States by reason of race or color.”

. . . .
“Mr. Broomall introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . .

“Neither Congress nor any State by its constitution or laws shall deny or restrict the right of suffrage to citizens of the United States on account of race or parentage of such citizens; and all qualifications or limitations of the right of suffrage in the constitution or laws of any State based upon race or parentage, are, and are hereby, declared to be, void.”

. . . .

“Mr. Stokes introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . .

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall deprive any citizen of the right of the elective franchise on account of race or color.”

[Source: Congressional Globe, 40th Congress, 3rd Session, pp. 6, 9, 11.]

In view of the gutting of portions of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case, and the subsequent passage of numerous voter suppression laws, and also the ongoing crisis of extreme gerrymandering, for several years I have wanted to write a series examining those issues from the viewpoint of the Congress that passed the Fifteenth Amendment 150+1 years ago. Finding the debates in the record of Congress proved diabolically hard, which is why I didn’t undertake this task one year ago. Recently the index in Prof. Eric Foner’s book “The Second Founding,” which discussed the post-Civil War Amendments in great detail, proved very helpful in locating many (although not all!) of those debates in the record.
So – no promises, because this involves reading about 1000 pages of tiny script in the Congressional Globe (the forerunner to the Congressional Record)! – I hope to follow this post up with day-by-day highlights of that debate, on the dates the statements were made, many of which clearly set forth the Congressional intent, and anticipated many of the issues we face now, 150 years later.
Notice the difference between the two Senate proposals and the three House proposals. The Senate proposals would codify a broad right to vote, and allow certain exceptions or qualifications to that right. The House proposals, on the other hand, narrowly prohibit racial discrimination in the right to vote, while being silent on other qualifications and notably not conferring a Constitutional “right to vote.”
Of course, we know which version ultimately was enacted. The reasons why will become apparent as we watch the debates progress.

Comments (0) | |

The End Of The Harris Candidacy

The End Of The Harris Candidacy

I should probably not waste time on this, but I was a fan of Kamala Harris. Her ending her candidacy while still in fifth  place in the polls and  if in a long slide, has me disappointed.  As it is, given her declining polls, lack of money, and reportedly internally divided campaign staff; her chances of actually getting the nomination had fallen to effectively zero.   It is actually an act of class on her part to get out of the overly crowded Dem field.

In light of  the recent sharp decline of Warren as well who is now running #4 among Dems, we now have three white males on top.  As it is I confess, I favored both Warren and Harris over all three of them and the rest as well.  How is it these problematic three whilte males are on top (I reocgnize that especially supporters of Sanders and Buttiegieg will dispute this and may well show up here to properly correct me and tell us of their virtues, and they as well as Biden do have virtues)?

I am going to put it out there: I think both Warren and Harris, especially the latter, have been held to a higher standard as women and Harris more so as a minority woman, than the white males. They are not allowed to make any errors or even appear to make an error.  The white males can bungle and have serious issues, but hey, not a problem, or at least not a fatal problem.  They can go on for the next day.

Comments (18) | |

Forecasting the 2020 election: the economic baseline (or, don’t count on a recession)

Forecasting the 2020 election: the economic baseline (or, don’t count on a recession)

Four years ago, I decided to use my set of “long leading indicators” to forecast the 2016 election. The indicators were very weakly positive, and pointed to a narrow popular vote win for the incumbent party one year out. This prompted Nate Silver to huff and puff that nobody knew anything about what the economy would look like so far off. One year later, the economy was very weak, the downward move in the unemployment rate had stalled, and the incumbent won the popular vote narrowly (but obviously not the Electoral College vote).

Well, the 2020 election is 11 months away. So it’s time to do the impossible again.

As I wrote four years ago, going back 160 years, roughly 3/4 of all US Presidential election results have correlated positively with whether or not at the time of the election campaign, the US was in a recession or not. More than 2/3 of the time, it accurately predicted the Electoral College winner, and 80% of the time, it accurately showed the winner of the populat vote.  In fact, if we simply go by the metric of whether or not the US was in recession during the 3rd Quarter of the election year, then 84% of the time the winner of the popular vote was from the incumbent party if the economy was expanding, and from the opposition party if the economy was in recession. (The list of all of the elections, the economic status, and the victor in each election, is available at the link above).

In only 3 of the 11 cases where there has been a recession in the 3rd or 4th Quarter of the election year has the incumbent party been successful maintaining control of the White House. Contrarily, of the 29 times the economy has been expanding during the 3rd and 4th Quarter of an election year, the incumbent party has retained control of the White House nearly 3/4 of the time. If we go by popular vote rather than electoral college result, that average increases to over 80% (Both the 2000 and 2016 elections fall into this category, where there was no recession, the incumbent party won the popular vote, but the electoral college resulted in the opposition candidate being declared the winner).

So, with the election one year off, let’s take a look at “Will there be a recession on  Election Day? The simple answer is, left to its own devices, almost certainly not.

Several months ago, analyzing the long leading indicators, I wrote that economic conditions would start to improve by about midyear 2020. Although there has been some deterioration in several long leading metrics since then, that result has remained the same. Below I go through all of the same indicators (7 in all) and their status now. Remember that they suggest how the economy will be 12+ months out.

1. Corporate bond yields fell to new expansion lows a few months ago:

 

Comments (9) | |

The New Pharmacy Price Transparency Rule Put Forth by President Trump

The New Hospital Price Disclosure Rule Is Important, But Only A First Step,” Health Affairs, James C. Capretta, August 26, 2019

The new proposed regulation on hospital price transparency is an important step toward consumer-friendly price information. The regulation introduces into federal price transparency, requirements such as the concepts: of service standardization, consumer-friendly organization and terminology, and bundling of which all of are crucial for a marketplace to become price competitive.

As the administration acknowledges, this regulation by itself will not fully address the opacity of today’s market. Additional disruptive changes will be necessary to give consumers usable pricing information. Among which, meaningful transparency requires stricter standardization of the services being priced and “all in” pricing matching how consumers think about the services they need.

Additionally, the reform of the nation’s insurance payment system must be integrated into the price transparency effort to ensure consumers are price sensitive across a wider range of services. Suppliers of services will only compete on price when significant numbers of consumers have strong incentives to seek out low-cost alternatives.

Me: To which I would add there is a big difference between price and cost and it is not being acknowledged.

The Trump administration on Friday put forth two long-anticipated rules that increase price transparency for both hospitals and insurers.

The CMS’ hospital price transparency requirements finalize changes that require health systems to make their standard fees available on-demand and online. The “transparency in coverage” proposed rule would require health plans, including employer-based plans, and group and individual plans, to inform participants, beneficiaries and enrollees about price and cost-sharing information ahead of time.

The agency hopes increased price transparency will boost competition among hospitals and insurers to drive down healthcare spending.

Under the new price transparency rule, hospitals must publish their standard charges online in a machine-readable format. They will need to create at least 300 “shoppable” services, including 70 selected by the CMS.

Under the rule, hospitals would have to disclose the rates they negotiate with third-party payers, which some experts say could be illegal.

Hospitals get ready to fight CMS in Court over Transparency,” FierceHealthcare, Robert King, November 15, 2019

More after the leap!

Comments (4) | |

If you are a conservative, you have no memory. Jonathan Turley

I learned a long time ago at much personal expense, that there is a personality type which function within reality, but only in the present moment of reality.  That is, what ever I say now has no bearing or relationship to what I just said or what I am about to say.  I will deny what you thought you heard.  If that is not enough, I will qualify it but…it has no bearing on what you believe I am saying.  You can just never know and ultimately have no conversation that resolves.

It’s as if they can time shift.  You can just never know and ultimately have no conversation that resolves.

That is what I believe we are witnessing today with the republican party.  They are not protecting Trump.  They are protecting an image they believe in at the moment fully dependent on what they believe is the reality which as I noted is only for the fleeting moment.

Being today was the day for debate club at the House Judiciary committee, and one Jonathan Turley is the republican witness as to what is or is not impeachment, I thought it is only proper preparation to have gone back and see what he has stated in the past.  Sadly, it is apparent that none of the Democratic members did this simple activity in preparation.

I give you Mr. Turley on with Keith Olbermann during the Bush years regarding torture and surveillance the constitution and presidential power.

This clip is most telling as to his sincerity testifying today.

 

But, here he is regarding the president’s ability to continue a war even if congress cuts off funds.  It’s a constitutional question in which he defends congress.  When asked, he responded: No.  It’s as simple as that.

Last and more relevant for today’s presentation, here is Mr Turley regarding Bush regarding the Constitution as just a piece of paper.  That is, Bush thumbing his nose at the law.   And note how Mr. Turley lists those in the administration that have run into legal conflicts.

“First of all, this president and his theory of power, is now I think so extreme, that its unprecedented.  He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law.  He has said that…that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law…Frankly I’m not to sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath to uphold the constitution and our laws.  I’ve never seen a president who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin. ”

“Unfortunately, civil liberties don’t swing back like other issues.  Civil liberties is a very precious commodity.  When you lose them, it tends to run out of your hand like sand. Its hard to get it back, and that’s one of the dangers here.  That presidents, when they acquire power rarely return it to the people.   And so, we have to be very concerned.  This country is changing in a very significant way…We’re really at a point where the president is arguing about his own presidential power in ways that are the antithesis of that constitution and the values that it contains.”

Today he’s defending all that he protested against while on with Keith Olbermann.  No memory.  Only in the moment.  What I say now has no relation to what I said or what I’m about to say.

Tags: , , , , Comments (14) | |

Just because we are where we are today. Conservatives without Conscience

Being that I have lots to say and have not had time to formulate it into posts I figured I would just start here.  2006.  Do watch it.  He tried to warn us.   But hey…Now the news media is being threatened too and they are concerned.


Figure 1

I keep coming to these words: But don’t ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to”
Ooh, well

One question for MSNBC who now puts on David Jolly regularly as the non-republican republican: Why has MSNBC not  put John Dean on?

Tags: , , , , , Comments (4) | |

Wealth Taxes

There is an interesting discussion among smart, expert, thorough economists about wealth taxation. It is clearly stimulated by Warren’s proposal to tax wealth. Gabriel Zucman, Roger Farmer, and the much less famous but also super smart Noah Smith are debating the issues. I’m sure AngryBear readers can benefit from their discussion (to which I don’t link cause I just saw one tweet).

I am also sure that it will be a waste of time to click “more” and read my thoughts on the topic. Caveat lector.

Comments (12) | |

Plastic: Part of the Problem . . . Part of the Solution – Part 2: the European Union’s Solution

As you can read for yourself, this is the second part  of the series. This part will introduce the EU’s proposed solution to plastic waste material of which Sesotec is to be a part of the solution. Since I am using Sesotec’s information, I will be stating their name as owner’s of this information from time to time.

Some 70 years after the first plastic products hit the market, a world without plastic waste still appears far off. We need a different approach to dealing with what many consider to be rubbish – and we need it fast. In this multi-part series, we will take a look at the role that the waste management and recycling industry can play in the process. Part I took us to China. Now it is time to take a look at Europe.

China is no longer taking on the world’s plastic waste, and our oceans could soon be home to more pieces of plastic than fish. The time to act is now.

There are many ways to reduce plastic waste. Banning their use is one of them. A great deal of plastic packaging is, in fact, unnecessary. Yet it also offers benefits in certain areas, such a hygiene and shelf life, making a complete ban rather unrealistic.

Another approach is to avoid plastic in many situations and to practise “plastic fasting”. Still, even that will not work everywhere, especially in the industrial sector. It is therefore essential to find an alternative solution – one that is also reflected in the EU’s plastics strategy: a circular economy.

The European Union presented its plastics strategy on 16 January 2018. Under the strategy, all plastic packaging must be either reusable or recyclable at low cost by 2030. One of the EU’s goals in its plastics strategy is to stop marine litter. The long-term goal must be to avoid marine plastic waste entirely. However, creating a circular economy and recognising the value of a material that is widely considered to be refuse will be essential to achieving this aim.

The overall EU strategy is based specifically on four basic tenets:

  • manufacturing recyclable products
  • optimising the separation and collection of plastic waste
  • increasing recycling capacities
  • reusing recyclates in production

Past the leap, the EU’s Commitment

Tags: Comments (0) | |

SECURE Act Up for Consideration in the Senate – A Rehash

I covered the House SECURE Act and the Senate RESA version last July. The House RESA Act is up for consideration in the Senate now. It does not look like it is going to make it due to the impeachment process going on and a potential trial in the Senate. There is also a small matter of a budget needing to be passed. It was to be considered under an unanimous consent vote; however, three Republican Senators (Mike Lee of Utah [unidentified reason], Ted Cruz of Texas (529 Accounts), and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania [Gold Star tax exemption]) put holds on the bill (reasons in parenthesis). Then there is McConnell, who will not bring it to the floor for a vote.

Congress has been working on a much-needed improvement for “Middle Class” savings and growth over the span of employment in order  to boost retirement resource for citizens who can afford to save. Both the Senate and the House versions have been sitting since July. Whata surprise, heh?

Dueling bills to restructure IRAs and 401ks appear to be redundant; but, there are differences.  Better known as the “Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Act” (SECURE Act) H.R.1994 and the Senate has the “Retirement Enhancements and Savings Act” S.792 (RESA) version. Both bills were passed with bipartisan support. Both bills for the Middle Class had pluses and rather big negatives also. It appears the House RESA Act is going forward for a vote.

The RESA Act is mostly for the masses who may be able to save some money for retirement in spite of stagnant wages. No worries for the for the rich in income (unless something has changed since I last looked at this).  A major outcome of the Trump tax bill were tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. Besides much of the resulting income increases going to 1% of the household taxpayers, the same 1% were given the ability to shelter large amounts of income in gifts to their heirs. It is a great time to be rich in income and have the ability to shelter it by making gifts of it to your heirs’ tax free! Keep in mind, seven or so years out and those income tax cuts will disappear for the middle income brackets. Somebody has to pay for the overall breaks otherwise their tax relief will sunset as they were passed under reconciliation in the Senate.

A little history (past the leap) on why Congress did something which will help those who can afford to save presently, penalize those bequeathed whatever is left over after death, and pay for the IRA and 401k break.

Comments (4) | |