Should We Not Help Republicans Regain Their 1st Amendment Right?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, today is the day to have the discussion about gun control policy that you arguably believe should be swept under the rug.

I refer to her answer as White House spokesperson to repeated questions about gun control by the press in response to the mass shooting (the largest in our nation ---- to date) in Las Vegas that occurred in the late evening PST yesterday/early morning EST today at an outdoor concert.

The Republican leadership, those that lead our country, could only muster comments such as, the shooting was “an act of evil” and commanding token half-hearted actions such as, lowering flags to half-mast.  I just wonder what problem lowering flags to half-mast solves, surely, none.  Arguably, it is offensive to lower flags to half-mast in this instance because, are not the lives lost worth more than that token gesture? Instead, should we not raise flags all the way and state, “we are not taking this shit anymore!” which leads me to my question, should we not help Republicans regain their 1st amendment right?

I think Republicans have lost their 1st Amendment right from intimidation by the NRA.  I believe Republicans are afraid to speak up because they are afraid the NRA will bully them (& lose their donations).  As such, we need to help them stand up to these bullies and say enough is enough.

NRA may have started out in 1871 with good cause, but I believe it lost its way when the gun and bullet manufactures gained too much sway.    Why else would they arguably be promoting guns for everyone under the guise of protecting our 2nd amendment right?  I fear their actions could lead us to losing our 2nd amendment right.

Our nation’s leading document is the Declaration of Independence, which states that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Constitution, the Bill or Rights and the additional amendments were subsequently created to help us achieve these rights.  However, 59 people lost their “Life” less than 24 hours ago at the hands of a deranged man who used guns for some unknown reason, which follows the lives lost in Orlando, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. by people firing guns. Is not losing one’s “Life” at the hands of a person firing a gun  “destructive?”  As such, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [referring to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], is [it not] the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”  Our founders believed so or they would not have written that into the Declaration of Independence.

Eventually, if these mass killings continue everybody will know somebody that has been killed by the hands of someone wielding a gun.  When that occurs, the 2nd amendment is at risk. Therefore, we need to help the Republicans stand up to the NRA to promote responsible gun ownership, not ownership by all, which means - gun control.

The train (i.e. the discussion on gun control) left the station today and the Republicans need to jump on or they may find themselves left behind to pack their tent all by their lonesome.

The Shameful Editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

Today, I am a very, very disappointed subscriber of the WSJ.  I woke to read that the editors accuse Senator McCain of being a back stabber.  I have both written and called the paper to tell them otherwise.    I post a copy of my letter to the editors below.

I find your caricature of John McCain in your editorial entitled, A Republican Failure, extremely offensive.  Mr. McCain has served our country well.   His refusal to bend and break under unimaginable torture as POW demonstrates his dedication to his fellow man.  If he did not stab his fellow man in the back then why would he do it near the end of his life?

Moreover, you fail to recognize the true problem.  The problem is lack of leadership, which starts at the top.  Donald Trump has been a failure. He does not understand the problem and as such he cannot help the Republicans improve their aim (i.e. stated goal).

The goal should be in three successive steps: first contain, then stop and then reduce the cost of healthcare.  This goal may require repealing parts or all of the ACA, but repealing ACA does not truly address the causes that have led to healthcare costs increasing on average 250 bps more than GDP over the past 50 years.  Government regulation crafted by both parties during this period has created an industry that works in an oligopoly framework.  Both parties must work together to unwind this mess.

Corrine Brown Has Her Day In Court

I have a friend, shocking as it may seem, who once told me that politicians should be limited to two terms, one in office and one in jail.  I could not agree more, especially so, as it pertains to my former opponent, Corrine Brown. 

Ms Brown has been charged with 22 counts attributed to fraud, obstruction and filing false tax returns.   We all await the results of the jury deliberations.  Regardless of the verdict, the case illustrates two sad facts, which are:

1. It is hard to break free from crime and 
2. We should expect more from our elected officials, not less as referenced by the aforementioned joke.

In reference to the former stated fact, Ms. Brown, grew up in area known in Jacksonville, FL as the “Northside”, which is an euphemism, code, whatever you want to call it, to paint a  picture that depicts the lives of the residents living in this geographic area as challenging due to a myriad of causes.  The main cause and effect is poverty followed by low literacy rates and higher crime rates that further perpetuates the situation.  Arguably, residents of this community know at least one and possibly many fellow residents that have been affected by crime, whether as a victim or as perpetrator. As a side note, I met many on the campaign trail eight years ago. Regardless, I believe this knowledge of crime and its effects within this community leads to understanding, which leads to tacit acceptance of (& a blind eye to) criminal behavior that I further believe begins in childhood.  Ms. Brown through hard work seemed to have broken free from this cycle of crime, but sadly, she fell back in, which proves the old adage, “you can take a [girl] out of the country, but you cannot take the country out of the [girl].”

In reference to the latter stated fact, I recently saw results of a Gallup survey that showed that the majority of people believe that politicians are corrupt.  Using the same logic in my former argument, if people believe that politicians are corrupt then I contend that these same people expect this behavior whether they acknowledge it or not, which I further contend is tacit acceptance and therefore, it becomes reality as exemplified by the situation in which Corrine Brown finds herself.  I find that unacceptable and so should everyone else.  Moreover, I believe our elected officials should be held accountable for their behavior to at least the same level as ordinary citizens because they are role models. Without the rule of law, anarchy can occur, which is not good for anybody.

Our legacy is what we leave behind when we die is it not? Should we not seek to improve the lives of future generations so that our spirit continues long after we are gone?  Should not every successive generation be the greatest generation? It comes down to what we value is it not?  I value a lot of things such as truth and honest, but germane to this situation, I value the rule of law when someone fails to be honest and commits a crime, how about you?  Hopefully, the jury will see the facts as I see them to convict Corrine Brown on some if not all counts.

Cut Soaring Salaries To Reduce Healthcare Costs

Want to cut healthcare costs?  Cut salaries. 

One need not look far to find data pertaining to healthcare costs.  However, discerning the signal from all the noise has been next to impossible as evidenced by myriad of recommendations and government regulations all the while  healthcare costs continue to grow at a rate greater than GDP, 25o bps greater over the last 50 plus years!

The noise is compelling, just look at a few examples:

1. McKinsey accounts for the cost of healthcare,
2. History of US healthcare spending,
3. Truth about medical malpractice,
4. Harvard Business Review shows how to reduce waste in healthcare spending, and 
5. Kaiser Family Foundation compiles recent data.

All the above information makes for fascinating reading, but it can make your head spin, especially so if you seek to truly find ways to contain healthcare costs. 

Healthcare costs cannot continue to outpace GDP or eventually it becomes GDP.  At the current pace, healthcare cost would be ~50% of GDP in 45 years and in 75 years, it will comprise all of GDP. So the question becomes when does healthcare cost slow and eventually grow at a rate less than GDP so that healthcare costs are in-line with other industrialized nations? Restricting access to those with money (as Republicans want) is one way.  Taking from those that have money to give to others (as the Democrats did) is another, but neither is the best.

To properly answer that question, we need to find the signal.  The signal is in front of our very eyes and we miss it. I too, started focusing on the noise, but I could not stop thinking about a recent chance meeting with a young neurosurgeon who has 27 classic cars. 

My focus fixation on all those cars allowed me to observe the signal, which is, hold on ---- “salaries”.  It is that simple, yet we miss it, accept it, whatever, but this cannot continue.

The biggest component of any product or service is salaries, especially so in a service industry such as healthcare.  In case you are wondering about information technology (IT) and medical technology spend, together they account for a a whopping $125 billion or less than five percent (5%) of the overall healthcare spend, essentially, this spend is negligible.

Salaries comprise more than those of doctors.  It comprises administrators, salespersons (medical equipment, drugs, insurance, etc…), etc…  In the case of physicians, their salaries have grown at the same rate as healthcare over the last five decades.  Is it correlation or causation?  I believe it is a little of both.

The reason why salaries have been able to increase is because the healthcare industry has become essentially an oligopoly due to electing more lawyers than economists that have passed laws, which have created all the regulations that have led to this mess.  John McCracken, PhD, of UT Dallas, also believes that the healthcare industry is becoming oligopoly, but for different reasons, which he states in his well written blog post here.

If by some miracle our elected officials see the errors of theirs and their predecessors’ ways and fix this mess, sadly, it will take approximately 40 years to contain costs to where the costs are in line with other industrialized nations (assumes GDP growth stays constant and healthcare growth decelerates at a reasonable rate of 95% of the prior year’s growth and essentially goes flat in 20 years).

In short, expect healthcare to remain a topic of discussion for a long time.

Still Dealing With Whom Is Going To Pay For Healthcare

Healthcare once again rears its ugly head now that the CBO has scored the GOP's ACA replacement and predicts that the rolls of the uninsured would increase which would lower the Federal government's costs.

Sadly, the Republicans that sponsored the bill seek to shift costs, not lower them just like the Democrats and President Obama did years before.  With the ACA, it just happened that individuals and families like mine carried the burden in costs (please see prior posts).  This time it will be the poor and the states.  Yet, we all carry the costs in one form or another.  I guess we all have to share in this misery before real reform takes place.

Interestingly, my first letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) written approximately six years ago referenced healthcare costs, which is as follows:

I agree with Dr. Donald Berwick in his op-ed article entitled, The Right Way to Reform Medicare, that we need to reduce our healthcare costs. He realizes that improving quality while reducing costs benefits consumers, but he woefully fails to see, understand and acknowledge, which is typical of most bureaucrats, that unfettered competition in a capitalistic economic system is the genesis of these consumer benefits, not more government regulation.

Upon reflection, I think what I wrote hits the nail on the head.

Border Adjustment Tax

Last week I wrote a letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Unlike a previous letter, which I shared in the prior post last week, this letter was not published in a print edition.

The letter referred to two opinion pieces in the February 27, 2017 print edition of the WSJ.  The first article was entitled, The Illusory Flaws of 'Border Adjustment', and the second article was entitled, The 'Longshoreman Philosopher' Saw Trump Coming in 1970.

The author of the first article, Martin Feldstein, believed the tax would net the U.S. $1 trillion over ten years whereas the author of the second article, Reuvan Brenner, shared the wisdom of Eric Hoffer, a U.S. philosopher that lived last century.

Upon reading my letter you may noticed that I favored the latter article over the former and in doing so I hit on two common themes of mine, cause and effect and the national debt.

My letter entitled, The ‘Illusory Flaws’ in “The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’” is as follows:

Mr. Feldstein doth ignore the law of cause and effect and or he must think foreign exporters to the US are imbeciles.  Based on what he wrote in his opinion piece entitled, The Illusory Flaws of ‘Border Adjustment’, I believe he may be one of the “alienated intellectual[s]” attributed to Eric Hoffer per Mr. Brenner in his opinion piece below Mr. Feldstein’s entitled, The ‘Longshoreman Philosopher’.

More specifically, if a US exporter to another country experienced a prompt and ongoing loss of gross margin of an additional 2000 bps or 20% ---and most likely a business loss (assuming operating margin in line with S&P 500 at ~ 700 bps or 7%), would he expect the exporter to do nothing?  The exporter will eventually stop exporting (either going out of business or from a smart business decision) and or increase prices.

Big picture, a tax is restrictive and will eventually lead to a reduction in consumption (and a drag on GDP, which I would think he would know). Maybe this convoluted and faulty thinking led him and other advisers to persuade President Reagan to believe in what his immediate successor had previously termed ‘voodoo economics’ (aka supply-side economics) because, arguably, voodoo economics led to an expanding debt obligation that began on Reagan’s watch and still continues today, 30 years later (please see chart at metrocosm.com).

We have serious problems that need serious solutions, not tax and spend gimmicks that fail to ignore relevant impacts.

Published Letter To The Editors of the Wall Street Journal

Recently, I had my letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dated 1/10 published in the 1/30 print edition of the WSJ.  For those of you who do not have a subscription to the WSJ, which is required for the above hyperlink to work, I post my letter below.

I did not know that my letter was published until I read my name in print.  It should go without saying, but I was ecstatic.

Hopefully, this will not be my only letter published as there are many that preceded this one and others that have followed. I will seek to post to this blog some of the more insightful letters in the coming weeks/months.

My letter as sent 1/10:

Mr. Zywicki and Mr Mane have forgotten the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. In trying to demonstrate their intellect in their jointly written opinion piece, they miss the mark. 

This case should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class action settlement (i.e. that contract language is nullified) then I would think that NY State cannot use an "interesting intellectual parlor game" to support the ban (even though the State might not realize that it is using that argument). 

As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair's ‘behavioral economics’ argument. 

Mr Zywicki and Mr Manne should be arguing for a free market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for them, chose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.

As you will see below, my letter as published by the WSJ 1/30 was somewhat sanitized:

Regarding Todd J. Zywicki and Geoffrey A. Manne’s “The Constitution Says Nothing About Behavioral Economics” (op-ed, Jan. 10): The case of New York’s ban on credit-card surcharges should be determined by the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If the contract that states the merchant cannot apply surcharges is dropped due to a class-action settlement (i.e., that contract language is nullified), then I would think that New York state cannot use an “interesting intellectual parlor game” to support the ban (even though the state might not realize that it is using that argument).

As such, it is highly possible the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the litigants even without buying into Expressions Hair Design’s “behavioral economics” argument.

Messrs. Zywicki and Manne should be arguing for a free, market economy that enables the customer to do what is best for him or her: Choose to pay the charge, pay in cash or go to another establishment that does not impose the charge.