Sen. Young - The National Version

So, in my haste to express my opinion re. our state Senator Mike Young, I have neglected to express my opinion regarding U.S. Senator Todd Young. Following is a somewhat old rant, but I believe most of my points are still relevant. Lest this be considered a partisan hit job, let me first express my utter disdain for Evan Bayh. That the IN Democratic Party can't do any better than Evan Bayh for its senate candidate is a testament to the incompetence of the party. They deserved to lose this seat, and they deserve to continue losing so long as they continue to do the same hapless $hi+.

But on to Todd Young.

First, I am sickened by his constant reference to his Marine service. Like most Americans, I am grateful for our men and women in uniform. However, I believe that those who would use their service as a character reference have revealed their own character far beyond what their service would say. Further, Todd Young implies that he has served in combat, when the closest he has come to combat, so far as I can tell, was Chicago. I'm sorry Senator Young, but I do not believe that serving stateside uniquely qualifies you to make decisions regarding the use of military force.

Second, his lauding of the private sector. This is a man who graduated from Carmel H.S. in 1990 and went to the Naval Academy in 1991. Thereafter, he was employed by the U.S. military until 2000. Notably, he was able to attend the University of Chicago and get an MBA while in the military. I wonder who paid his tuition? (Hint: I did). Moving on, he moved to Washington, D.C., in 2001 and worked for the Heritage Foundation, then joined Senator Richard Lugar's staff. In 2003, he joined Mitch Daniels' campaign. Meanwhile, he was an adjunct professor at IU's School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA later, those of you who couldn't get into Kelly!) and earned his law degree (again, who paid the tab?). He worked as a lawyer very briefly before running for congress.

Mind you, none of this is objectionable on its face, but when taken as a whole it is a bit distasteful. Grew up in Carmel. Got an appointment to the naval academy. Got commissioned as an officer stateside. Used government connections to get elite education. Used elite education to get elected.

This is a classic

Outsider indeed!

UPDATE: I also note that Senator Marine has failed to stand up to President Trump's national "emergency" declaration. As of four days ago, he was utterly silent. The funny thing about the internet, though, is that what you said during the last president is still available. So, in all of its glory, Senator Todd Young on executive overreach as pertains immigration (bold added by TableTop Joe):

"Our country must address illegal immigration, but unilateral action by the president that only addresses a fraction of our problems is the wrong way to go about it," Young wrote.

"When it comes to making or rewriting laws, Congress must be involved," he insisted.

"To that end, a few months ago the House passed legislation that would divert more resources towards securing our southern border, enforcing our existing laws, and processing legal cases more quickly," Young continued. "I had hoped we could use that legislation as a starting point next Congress to build deliberative and bipartisan consensus; instead, the president has decided to pursue a blatantly political course that jeopardizes the open dialogue and true immigration reform so many of us were hoping for in coming months."

"President Obama said repeatedly for years that he did not have the authority to act on immigration reform alone, a legal analysis I agree with," the congressman said.

"By contradicting himself for what appears to be political purposes, this action potentially sets a policy precedent fraught with unintended consequences when it comes to enforcement of any federal law," Young said. "Additionally, it may invite a new surge of illegal immigrants, rather than ensuring it will be extremely difficult for anyone to sneak or stay in the United States illegally."

I suppose it's true: where you stand depends on where you sit. When Todd Young was a house member in the majority with an opposition party president, it was downright easy to throw stones at the "house of Obama." Now, however, as a Senator in the majority with a Republican President, I suppose we see the actual "value" of Todd Young's "convictions."

I suppose, as to the value of Senator Young's convictions, if I take those convictions and add $4 I could get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Senator Todd Young's Response to Mass Shootings

I was told that Sen. Todd Young, a Marine (as he would never let anyone forget) was a man of action. He would keep Hoosiers safe! I am starting to wonder whether that safety is only important when the potential perpetrator is a brown-skinned man of a different religion from a different country. Heaven forbid that Senator G.I. Joe do something, anything, to protect his constituents from the depravities of mass shooters here at home.

(As an aside, why are these mass shooters not called "terrorists?" The only thing I can think of is that "terrorist" has come to imply "muslim" in our popular discourse, but I would like to think I'm wrong about that.)

Anyway, my wife and I emailed Sen. Todd Young and pleaded that he do something, anything, to make the procurement of military grade assault rifles more difficult. Below is his vacuous response, annotated with the thoughts of yours truly:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun violence and the 2nd Amendment.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Senator Young, we do not appreciate contacting you on this issue. We are forced to contact you on this issue, over and over again, because you refuse to do anything about it. You're more than willing to impose onerous requirements for people to vote, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence whatsoever that in-person voter fraud is a problem in IN; however, you refuse to do anything about assault weapon proliferation, notwithstanding the monthly mass shootings using such assault weapons.

          As your Senator, I respect that Hoosiers have strong and diverse feelings on how to prevent gun violence while protecting the 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm calling bullshit. You don't respect my feelings on the 2nd Amendment, nor do you respect the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. You respect a lowest-common-denominator version of the 2nd Amendment that races us to the bottom.

I strongly believe in upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, and I know we all share a common desire to prevent acts of gun violence, such as through strengthening mental health, enforcing current gun laws, and fully funding our existing background check system.   

Notably absent? Any discussion of banning military assault weapons for civilian ownership. Where does Sen. Young stand on my right to own an M-60? My right to landmine my front yard? My right to own a tank? Given his stance on assault rifles, I think my questions are reasonable. Sen. Young, does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to build and possess a hydrogen bomb?

And Sen. Young, you weren't elected to "share a common desire" to do anything. The difference between you and me, Sen. Young, is that you have 1 of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate. I don't. You are a member of a very elite club. Did you seek to join that club to be a senator or to do something with the power that being a senator carries? It's one or the other, and I suspect it is much more of the former than the latter.

          As criminal investigations move forward in the recent Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs attacks, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on firearm accessory regulation and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on December 6, 2017. Although I am not a member of the Committee, please be assured that I will continue to support efforts to prevent violence while upholding the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding Americans.

Criminal investigations? We know who did it. We know who died. We know the type of gun used. The perpetrator has been charged. There is no "investigation" to speak of. The only question that remains unanswered is why "we" (by which I mean You, Sen. Young, and your bought-and-paid-for cronies) cannot or will not do anything to stop it. What will you do Sen. Young, other than cash your campaign check from the NRA? "Continue to support their efforts?" Spare me.

          Again, thank you for contacting me.  It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

You're not welcome Senator. It is a shame and an embarrassment to be represented by you in the United States Senate. I recall when we had senators of whom we could be proud . . . Richard Lugar, I turn my lonely eyes to you. Governor Holcomb, you're our only hope.

Tax Burden Distribution

As I've commented on previously, there is a large effort underway to "reform" the tax code. Of course, you'll hear a lot about how these "reforms" will lead to more money for the middle class; however, you have to take a lot of "trickle down" economic theory on faith to believe that any of that money will ever reach the middle class.

What is guaranteed in this "reform" effort, of course, is that corporate taxes and inheritance taxes will go down considerably. So, if you stand to inherit more than $11,000,000 then you are guaranteed to benefit from this plan. If you work for a living, you have to take it on faith that corporations will take their newfound money and, contrary to experience from the past 20 years, raise wages.

That is the easy part.

The more interesting part, to me, is the distributional effect this will have. It seems to me that our government's priorities should be determined by a combination of our moral compass and our sense of "he who pays, plays."

Here is an interesting data point. In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33% of federal tax collections. Today it accounts for 9%.

As an interesting corollary, here is a graph showing corporate profits and wages as a percentage of all money made in America in a given year.

Now, I'm not statistician, but it appears to me that wages (the red line) have consistently shrunk, whereas profits have consistently risen.

It's almost as though we have actual evidence that trickle-down economics is a hoax and has no basis in reality. I mean, if you look at the chart above, it would almost lead you to believe that corporations don't actually use increased profits to pay increased wages! Amazing what happens when you look at actual statistics and facts and cut through the rhetoric and talking points!

However, I want to go one level deeper.

If corporations are only paying 9% of federal tax collections, why is it that so much American military might is expended to keep corporate assets, from oil rigs to container ships to intellectual property, safe?

If they're only paying 9% of the tab, why do they get so much of the benefit? Why is it that all the talk as far as paying for these corporate tax cuts is centered on cutting social security or medicare? The people who would get their benefits cut are the ones who have paid the freight for their benefits!

Just think about that the next time Sen. Empty Suit Toy Soldier Todd Young or Vice President Taliban Cotton Mather Pence talks about "reforming" the tax code.

The Real Goal (I think)

I used to lament during George W. Bush's presidency that he ran on a promise that government didn't work, and he governed to ensure that his campaign promise came true.

I still believe, generally speaking, that anyone who runs against the government he/she purports to lead is disqualified from the office. In light of that, I came across some interesting commentary on one of my favorite blogs, Gin & Tacos (linked on the right). Here are some excerpts:

The Federal bureaucracy is like the world's most anal-retentive child meticulously building a sand castle for decades. The Trump administration is the asshole who kicks the whole thing down in thirty seconds.

I would agree. It takes time to build things, and it only takes a fraction thereof to destroy them. Just think of how long it takes to bake cookies vs. how long it takes to eat them.

More:

This underscores a fundamental reason that Republicans have the upper hand in modern politics. Their only goal is to tear down as much of the structure of government as possible or, perhaps even preferably, turn it into a poorly functioning tool for channeling government contracts to their hangers-on. Democrats, even in the lukewarm Centrist style of Democrats like Hillary Clinton, want The State to do things. Implementing any policy, law, or initiative in which the government has to do something requires the bureaucratic capacity to do it. 

I would add to this and say that implementing any governmental action that will make the lives of one's citizenry better requires the will to implement such action. Sadly, I see no such will in the modern Republican Party.

What is lost during periods of right-wing governance rarely is recovered.

Agreed again.

As much as I would like to believe that so-called "conservatives" share my goals and simply believe that there is a better way to accomplish them, I am increasingly skeptical of my previous optimism. After 8 years, President Obama was not able to undo the damage done by George W. Bush, who managed to hollow out a substantial portion of the gains made during the Clinton administration on such things as the environment and increasing wages for the bottom 70-80% of wage earners in this nation.

Sigh. As President Obama so memorably said, "Elections have consequences." They certainly do, and we will be living with the consequences of the 2016 one for a long time. All that I ask is that when the predictable and predicted consequences of President Trump's incompetence come home to roost, at least acknowledge that many of us predicted these consequences. As has been said before, it's bad enough that I have to live with these consequences; at least don't insult me by saying nobody could've predicted them.

 

 

Origination

For the 4th of July, I will leave aside the cheap jingoism that too often accompanies the holiday and instead focus on what I believe was the founding idea of this great nation of ours.

For millennia, the commoners (like my ancestors) were expected to live at the pleasure of their royal "betters." The "landed gentry" was a term that arose in the context of a society where there were a few people who had land, and then there was everyone else who worked said land for the pleasure of its owners. These were the feudal lords, and at the culmination of this system were the titular royals who had the authority to grant land and titles, both of which directly correlated to more bountiful and comfortable lives. Pardon the oversimplification.

At some point, our founding fathers determined that they could set up a new system whereby power and wealth amassed not based on one's parentage but based on one's merit. Again, pardon the oversimplification.

I still believe that this is a beautiful aspiration: the populace governs itself, instituting policies that are based on objective evidence, and rejecting the policies that repeatedly fail. . . stubbornly refusing to repeat the mistakes of our peoples' collective history. A place, not unlike ancient Rome, where good ideas are always welcome; where we understand that those good ideas make our society better and are more than a mere vehicle to launch people into perpetual un/underemployment.

Maintaining such an idea requires vigilance and a constant longview. What may be good for today and tomorrow may be immeasurably bad for the day after. We need to be mindful of such things.

As I've written before, good policy outcomes in the past don't necessarily mean good outcomes in the future. Perhaps, we should have a conversation as to what outcomes we want. Then, we can move on to how we get there. That is the essence of self governance.

Happy 4th of July. Be careful.

Why are we "reforming" healthcare? Pt. 2

This is an honest question for most right-wing supporters of repealing Obamacare: What are the substantive, objective, measurable goals you hope to achieve?

When  Obamacare was being debated (for more than a year), any supporter thereof was able to say what the goal was: universal coverage and slowing the growth in the cost.

What is the goal now? What end does Sen. Todd Young, Rep. Susan Brooks, Rep. Todd Rokita (he with the wife earning $20,000/month from the Town of Fishers), or Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-TN IN) hope to achieve?

If we get a substantive answer to that question, we can then determine whether Rs and Ds actually share a common goal. I suspect they don't.

And the award for most competent public official goes to . . .

I'm not really talking about the Town Council, but they are included in this observation. So far as I can tell, here are the people who represent me at all levels of government, starting here in Speedway:

• Eileen Fisher (R), Speedway Town Council
• Joe Hogsett (D), Indianapolis Mayor
• Rep. Karlee Macer (D), IN House of Representatives
• Sen. Mike Young (R), IN Senate
• Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), IN Governor
• Rep. Andre Carson (D), US House of Representatives
• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), US Senate
• Sen. Todd Young (R), US Senate
• Pres. Donald J. Trump (R)

Of all of these people, I would say that I have the most confidence in Gov. Holcomb. While I tend to disagree with some of his priorities, I believe him to be a competent manager of people who is in the office because he wants to do something as opposed to being in the office because he wants to be something.

As pertains the remainder of those on this list:

• I have no doubt that Eileen Fisher is a nice lady. I have been fortunate to meet her and found her pleasant and agreeable. However, I have not seen much by way of any policy ideas that she has pushed. Insofar as she has acquiesced to the extortion over parking that is going on down on Main St., my feelings on this are well known.
• Likewise, Joe Hogsett seems like a nice enough guy. However, his track record as US Attorney leaves much to be desired.
• Karlee Macer is a nice lady who I have had the pleasure of meeting. She likewise seems pleasant and agreeable, and I am glad to have at least a few seats in the state legislature occupied by anything other than the self-proclaimed "conservatives" of the Republican party. However, I am unable to identify any major achievements of hers.
• Mike Young is your typical pseudo-conservative politician: feed at the public trough while lecturing others for doing the same . . . make sure that policy comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. 
• Andre Carson . . . inherited his seat from his grandmother and has no legislative accomplishments.
• Joe Donnelly. Caved on the Neil Gorsuch nomination. Resides squarely in the "Joe Lieberman/centrist/spineless" camp
• Todd Young - see my comments on Mike Young, and multiply by a thousand.
• Donald Trump - turn on the TV.

Gov. Holcomb, however, actually has ideas and is willing to take risks to do what he believes is in the state's best interest. Could you imagine Mike Pence agreeing to raise taxes, for any reason, at any time? Me neither. Gov. Holcomb recognized that roads need to be paid for, and taxes pay the government's bills. He recognizes that if the populace wants "stuff," they have to pay for it; "starve the beast" has been a miserable failure, perhaps "serve the bill" will work to shrink government.

Gov. Holcomb also recognizes (unlike the US Atty. Gen.) that the opioid epidemic is a public health problem and not merely a criminal justice problem. Again, can you imagine our ex-Gov. Empty Suit Mike Pence conceding something this monumentally obvious?

So, congratulations Gov. Holcomb, you have the vote of confidence of TableTop Joe. Congratulations, or something.

Senator Young's "Response" to My Letter

I can't imagine why people believe that their "representatives" fail to represent them unless they bring a big fat campaign donation. Here is Senator Young's response to my letter, annotated with my comments:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

          Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I suppose my letter was about your effort to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. If you had a better idea than Obamacare, you would have my wholehearted support. Your efforts, since going to Congress, have only been an attempt to make healthcare less affordable for people like me. Your efforts have been focused on making healthcare more profitable for the providers and less affordable for the patients.

          While the PPACA – the law known by most as Obamacare – sought to address skyrocketing health care costs and access to care issues, it largely failed, and Americans are now experiencing collapsing health insurance exchanges and soaring premiums.  

It is nice that Sen. Young now concedes, after a mere 8 years, that Obamacare was not some secret socialist plot to destroy America and the "greatest healthcare system on earth" (objective statistics be damned). As to your comments, Senator, on collapsing exchanges and soaring premiums, you now own these problems. You asked the American people to put you in charge; with power comes responsibility. Every penny that my premiums go up, and every benefit that is dropped from my health insurance, now rests with you. IT IS ON YOU.

The law also lacked sufficient regard for the doctor-patient relationship and consumer choice, and levied new taxes, fees, and mandates - many of which hit low and middle-income families and small businesses. 

Interesting that this bill is so bad that you have to lie about it Senator. The taxes contained in Obamacare were not aimed at low and middle-income families or small businesses, but the subsidies were. The taxes are on individuals' investment income in excess of $250,000/year. Raise your hand if you make more than a quarter million in investments a year. That is not low income. That is not middle income.

As to small businesses, that is a slippery term if I ever heard one. I know we all like to think a small business is a used record store, but it also encompasses each and every REIT, hedge fund, and capital investment group. I'm sure Brixmoor Properties is a "small business" in Senator Young's eyes, notwithstanding the fact that it owns an asset (real estate) worth several million dollars and collects hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in rental payments per year.

Further, please explain how Obamacare "lacked sufficient regard for the doctor-patient relationship and consumer choice." I suppose your bill is better in the consumer choice regard if that means "you get to choose everything you can afford." That sounds a bit like "the rich and poor alike are forbidden from begging and sleeping under bridges."

As to the doctor-patient relationship. Sen. Young, pass a law that states that a doctor owes a fiduciary duty to his/her patients, and you will not reek of hypocrisy. Until then, I can smell you from here.

          Obamacare has failed Hoosiers.  

Senator, you have never participated in the exchange. I have. If you are saying that it needs improvement, I agree. However, your purported "fix" to the American health care system makes every single problem with the system worse. As indicated above, you now own every problem with America's terrible health care system. Congratulations. 

Further, I note that the House bill contains a provision allowing states to opt out of consumer protections for me, but not for you and your staff. So, what am I to make of that? Good enough for me but not for thee?

One of my first votes in the Senate was to start the process of repealing and replacing this law that is collapsing under its own weight. 

When you say "collapsing under its own weight," I hear "our Republican sabotage of the law was working." I tell you what, Senator Marine, let's go out into the ocean on a boat; I'll start drilling holes in the boat and that can be evidence that boats don't work and we shouldn't rely on boats. How about that, Senator?

 Now that the House has sent over its bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a replacement that works for Indiana.

Why don't you work with your constituents to see how your votes will affect them? Why don't you see how many people will lose their insurance coverage as a result of your actions? Why don't you see what will happen to the cost of healthcare for those who get to keep their coverage? In a nutshell, why don't you please, for the love of God, consider the effect of your actions on the most vulnerable out there?

          Again, thank you for contacting me.  It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

You're not welcome, Senator. I know you don't care about what I think, and you will never deign to explain yourself to "someone like me." Just remember, though, that when all is said and done, we have to answer to the Almighty for our actions. When I stand before St. Peter, I will answer for my actions. So will you, Senator. So will you.

Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator

When we vote for people who profess to believe that the government can't make our lives better, we should be unsurprised when those people pass laws that utterly fail to improve our lives and indeed make our lives more difficult. Similarly, when the best the Indiana democratic party can do is pull Eddie Haskell Lobbyist Governor's Son Evan Bayh off the reclamation heap, then not only has Senator Todd Young failed us, so too has the Indiana Democratic party.

My Letter to Sen. Todd Young

What with the House of Representatives having passed the so-called "American Health Care Act," I reached out to Senator Todd Young who ostensibly represents me in the United States Senate. Here is the text:

Sen. Young,

I am writing to you to refrain from voting for the American Healthcare Act until you find out how it will affect my family. I am the sole provider for a wife and two kids. I work as a lawyer and carry approximately $XXXXXX (a scarily large number) in student loan debt from law school. I am gainfully employed in Indianapolis and earn nearly XXXXXXXX per year. Nonetheless, my firm is small and does not provide health insurance for my wife and two young kids (4-year-old son and 2-year-old daughter). The premiums for my health insurance are nearly what my mortgage costs (as is the monthly payment on my student loans). I am earnestly trying to provide a better future for my family, working no fewer than 60 hours/week. If my health insurance costs go up, or if my family faces a serious illness, I will be facing bankruptcy.

You represent my interests in congress every bit as much as you represent IU Health, Eli Lilly, Anthem, and Stryker (to name a few IN healthcare corporations). There are literally hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers in my position. Please, before you vote for the AHCA, consider its consequences. If you believe, objectively and based on the evidence, that the AHCA will materially improve the lives of your constituents (the human ones, if not the corporate ones), then please vote yes. If you do not so believe and instead would rely on materially dishonest talking points to explain the vote, I beseech you to vote no. 

Sincerely,

NOTE: my modest midwest roots preclude me from publicizing actual figures regarding my income and debt load. I provided such figures to Sen. Young so that he could make an informed decision on the impact of his vote on my life (if he actually cares), but I will not publicize those numbers here.

ALSO: my firm does make insurance available for my wife and children, however I have to pay the full premium, which would be double what a "silver" plan costs on healthcare.gov.

"Tabletop Joe"

Todd Young - Political Prototype

I am at a point where I really can't tell the difference between Evan Bayh and Todd Young, other than the letter next to their respective names. They both have that "too slick to be believed" manner about them; they both appear to have precisely zero principles; and they both have the prototypical politician's resume, by which I mean "lawyer who never practiced law."

Evan Bayh had a daddy who was the governor of IN. He then graduated from law school, joined Barnes & Thornburg and quickly made partner (can't imagine why the biggest law firm in the city, with extensive lobbying business, would want to hire the son of an ex-governor, but I digress). Thereafter, he became IN's governor, then Senator. Then, amazingly, he went to work at McGuire Woods, an even larger law firm than B & T, only located in Washington, D.C. He joined their "government relations" practice group. Huh. Frankly, I think he deserved to lose his last race in IN, as he has been the Eddie Haskel of IN politics long enough.

That crown has now passed to the new Eddie Haskel of IN politics: Todd Young.

Sen. Young has one hauntingly familiar item on his resume: lawyer who never really practiced law. Believe it or not, it is a matter of public record how many cases Todd Young ever appeared in. He earned his law degree in 2006 and appeared in a whopping 11 cases in the ensuing years before going back on the taxpayer's dole.

I will have more thoughts in the future, rest assured.