Guns, Self-Defense, and Yosemite Sam

I have a friend who worked as a consultant for the oil industry for awhile in Texas. When I asked him what Texas was like, he told me that it was the easiest place in the world to fit in . . . if you ever wonder what you should do, just ask yourself, "What would Yosemite Sam do?" His guiding principle.

In light of that, I noticed this story lately about a shoot-out between two neighbors down near Greenwood.

Now, I am not a big gun rights guy, nor am I a big gun control guy. You could say I own a "handgun," but since the day my grandfather picked it up off a dead German soldier in Europe sometime in the 1940s, I don't think it has been fired. Perhaps its more of a "decoration" than a "firearm," but nonetheless.

It occurred to me that gun-rights advocates are absolutely correct - guns don't kill people. Along the same lines, gasoline doesn't burn anything. They both, however, tend to accelerate already dangerous situations.

Here is the gist of the Greenwood story:

Security video released earlier this month shows the violent clash between Weigle and neighbor Dean Keller, 49.

Weigle can be heard insulting Keller and his wife, then is seen driving a riding mower off screen. Weigle backed up the mower and returned to the camera’s view, when he raises a handgun toward the sky.

Keller pulled a handgun and fired. Four shots struck Weigle in the chest. Weigle fell from the mower and fired shots back toward the Kellers.

This can only be described as tragic. What should have been a neighborly disagreement turned into a life threatening situation. Both parties will forever be affected by this one moment of lost tempers.

I heard a story shortly after moving in about how two of my (former) neighbors had a fistfight in the middle of the cul-de-sac. While a fistfight is assuredly not a preferred outcome, it is infinitely preferable to a shootout. If two people decide they want to fight, at least there aren't any stray bullets whizzing through my daughter's bedroom.

A thought.

"Legalize the Constitution"

I saw a bumper sticker that said this yesterday, and I couldn't help but think two things:

1. What a nice sentiment, and
2. Huh?

I understand that people want to wrap themselves in the constitution and claim fealty and loyalty to this supposedly "divine" document. I too revere the constitution, including its many flaws which in a perfect world would be rectified, but we man is a fallen being.

That aside, here is a little hierarchy for those playing along at home:

• The Constitution is atop all else in our legal framework. It is a vague statement of principles and grant of power to the federal government. It is the supreme law of the land and trumps (no pun intended) all other assertions of power. If it violates the constitution, it is illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law violates the constitution. See Marbury v. Madison.
• Based on the power granted under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to pass laws; the Executive has the power to execute the laws; and the Court has the power to adjudicate controversies about such laws (including whether they comply with the Constitution). This is basic schoolhouse rock stuff.
• As the constitution is generally vague, so too are laws at times. For example, a law that says that people aren't allowed to "pollute" needs a bit of explanation. Clearly, dumping cyanide into Lake Michigan, millions of gallons at a time, seems to count as pollution. What about throwing batteries away in my normal trash can? What about dumping a port-a-pot into the local creek? Poop is natural after all. I have a hard time entrusting our know-nothing congress critters to make that determination. I am more comfortable allowing them to designate that decision to actual experts who do such crazy things as read books in order to learn about what they're doing. This is where the administrative state comes into play.
• In the example above, the EPA would then be tasked with determining what amounts to "pollution" under the Clean Water Act. Different presidents will likely employ professionals who see things their way, i.e. a Republican will likely employ an EPA administrator who believes that environmental laws should be read narrowly, whereas a Democrat will likely employ an EPA administrator who reads environmental laws broadly. Nonetheless, they are each, in theory, employing knowledgeable people who can interpret and apply the law that Congress passed.

Please note, Congress can't pass laws that violate the constitution. Agencies can't pass rules that violate their "enabling" laws. These issues (whether a law violates the constitution and whether a regulation/rule violates its enabling statute OR the constitution) are litigated constantly.

To legalize the constitution is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense because literally nothing is legal if it does not abide the constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, please note that there is more to the story than the framework laid out above, particularly when we start dealing with state and local laws, whether the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated," whether laws have been pre-empted, etc. That is a discussion for another day.

Healthcare Factoid of the Day

According to Vox, if John McCain had been uninsured, the blood clot surgery that he got last week would have cost him approximately $76,000.

For those who say that nobody goes without healthcare in America, how would you respond to a $76,000 bill if, say:

• on Monday you lost your health insurance, and 
• on Tuesday you found out that either 
• you have this surgery on Wednesday, or 
• you die on Friday?

To be clear, the median income in Indianapolis is roughly $55,000/year.

Anyone down to work for a year and a half for one surgery? Ahhh, the magic of the free market. It makes me tingle!

Jay Sekulow, certified A-Hole

I have never met Jay Sekulow. I don't know that I've ever been in the same state as Jay Sekulow. But I know the type, and he is certainly the type.

From what I've gathered about him, he is one of those well-connected lawyers who never actually got good at the "lawyering" thing and instead has relied on connections, etc., to live a "rich lawyer" lifestyle. Fake it 'til you make it, as they say. Now, of course, thank you to James Comey, the Russians, and roughly 100,000 disaffected rural white people in three states, we all know the name Jay Sekulow and are "treated" to his legal "analysis" on a regular basis.

After seeing his tour de force crap on Sunday, I was amused to see this on one of the lawyer industry blogs I read. Some highlights:

According to Sekulow, the hubbub over the meeting could only be #FakeNews because the Secret Service wouldn’t have let it take place if it were improper.^[1]

Within minutes, social media lit up with sources pointing out that the Secret Service doesn’t perform any such service, a damning indictment one-upped by the revelation that the Service wasn’t even on Trump Jr. at the time. For anyone bothering to stay even a little informed, Sekulow’s appearances came off as buffoonery on parade.

But what if that’s the whole point? While most of us wonder how an attorney could go on television and marry his client to such a flimsy, easily disproven defense, it’s just possible that Sekulow’s playing the con perfectly.

Another quote:

Still, that any attorney would go on television so ill-prepared that he’d do this kind of damage to his client and his cronies strains credulity.  

Wow. Politics and assholery aside, this is pretty damning commentary on Sekulow's legal work. Here is the advice offered to Mr. Sekulow:

Sekulow doesn’t defend Jr., Kushner, or Manafort. But, as we’ve been saying for months, this is a white-collar matter, and like most white-collar matters, attorneys need to begin from the premise that every friend or family member as a trusted partner… and also a potential lump underneath the proverbial bus. “Mr. Trump knew nothing of the meeting, and relied only on the reports he received from people he had no reason to distrust” is a perfectly fine answer. Making up a phantom Secret Service vetting process is not. 

I can't resist this:

Sekulow’s legal career consists in large part to running a charity to buy very nice toys for himself. 

Finally, the punchline:

But of course to believe Jay Sekulow is a master showman, one would have to dismiss all those videos of his rock band.
That’s not so easy.

And . . . . . . microphone drop.

 

"Liberal" Academia

OK. I get it. I'm a lawyer, a former educator, a former public employee's union official . . . I fit the mold. I am the boogeyman that FoxNews and company harp about day in and day out.

In light of that, I was rather unsurprised to see that a majority of self-identified "conservatives" have a rather negative view of the impact of higher education on society. I suppose that wasn't too surprising to me, as I've heard more times than I can count some variation on the notion that my education is holding me back and preventing me from seeing some obvious truths in the world.

Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and award-winning economist, recently addressed this point:

A few days ago Pew reported that Republicans, who were already much less positive than Democrats about higher education, have turned very negative on the role of colleges in America. True to form, this worries some liberal commentators, who are calling for outreach – universities should examine their implicit biases, make an effort to hire more conservative faculty, etc..

And you can see the point. After all, among college professors 59 percent identify as Democrats versus only 13 percent as Republicans; senior faculty were even more liberal, with very few identifying themselves as conservatives.

Wow! That sure looks compelling. Continuing:

Oh, wait – that wasn’t a survey of college professors; it was a 2004 survey of the military, and the 59-13 comparison was of Republicans versus Democrats. Support for Republicans in the military has eroded since then, but the officer corps is still far more conservative than the country at large. Strange to say, however, I haven’t seen a lot of op-eds demanding that the military change its recruiting practices and practice what amounts to affirmative action on behalf of liberals.

Funny that.

The point is that your political orientation isn’t something handed to you, like your race or ethnicity. It’s a choice, reflecting your values – and those same values are likely to influence your choice of profession, and possibly how well you perform in that profession. Is there discrimination against would-be academics who express conservative beliefs? I’m sure it happens, but it’s not the main reason conservatives are less likely than liberals to join the academy, just as discrimination against would-be officers with liberal views probably isn’t the main reason the military trends conservative.

Agreed. Just as there's a reason that Gender Studies classes are full of people who are interested in the ways gender expresses itself in our society, Finance classes are chock full of people who are interested in determining how to use money to make money. This should not be surprising.

In conclusion, I will let Mr. Krugman say it, as he is the professional:

What this means for the future is grim. America basically invented the modern, educated society, leading the way on universal K-12 education, building the world’s finest and most comprehensive higher education system; this in turn was an important factor in how we became leader of the free world. Now a powerful political movement basically wants to make America ignorant again.

As Thomas Jefferson so memorably said, "If a nation wants to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Congratulations to Greenwood (and Speedway!)

I heard a report on NPR today on my way home from work that said Greenwood has experienced a 33% increase in recycling since providing its citizens the big, rolling 96-gallon containers for free.

The mayor (I think . . . it may have been the director of public works or some other such official) was discussing, among other things, the cost savings for the city in not having to secure as much landfill space. He also mentioned the environmental benefit of more recycling and less waste. Bravo!

I couldn't help but note, with a profound sense of satisfaction, that Speedway has a similar program.

As a side note, I have often wondered why we used to (maybe we still do?) have to pay a separate monthly bill to have recycling service, yet trash was built into our municipal utility bill. Why not the other way? Why not allow people to recycle to their hearts' content, paid for by a city utility bill? Along those lines, why not have a program where you have to buy a tag to get your garbage taken? I remember when I went to IU in the 1990s that in order to have the City of Bloomington take your trash, you had to buy a tag for each bag at Marsh. The cost was minimal, but it was enough of a pain that I can imagine it having a positive effect on people's behavior.

On Pain and Suffering and Absurdity

So here is a hypothetical that was presented in law school:

I have searched the world over looking for the perfect garden gnome, and finally I found him. Here he is:

Burt

This is Burt. There are a million garden gnomes in the world, but only one Burt. There may indeed be a million garden gnomes just like Burt in the world, but there is only one Burt. I searched the world over, looking for Burt. I finally, after years of searching and travelling, found Burt. There may be millions like Burt, but Burt is mine, and I loved Burt.

Ahhhh, the glory! My garden, my life!, was finally complete. That is, until my neighbor's dog, Cupcake, came along.

Here's Cupcake:

Cupcake

Apparently, Cupcake didn't like Burt as much as I did, because this is what became of Burt:

When Burt met Cupcake

I want to sue my neighbor.

Granted, Burt only cost me $14.95, but his value to me was considerably higher. I mean, after all, I spent years searching for the perfect Burt, and I was emotionally invested in Burt. I spent considerable amounts of time searching for Burt, and I know what my time is worth because my clients pay for it.

So, I figure that I should certainly get my $15 purchase price back. I should also get compensated for the hundreds of hours that I spent looking for the perfect Burt. Finally, I should be compensated for the emotional pain and suffering I had to endure watching Cupcake destroy Burt.

Therefore, I will demand $15 (purchase) + $15,000 (my time) + $50,000 (my emotional suffering).

What do you think, both readers? Can I get it? Should I?

(Disclaimer: For those who didn't pick up on it, this is a work of fiction)

UPDATE: Per Indiana law, you get the $15. No compensation for time or emotional suffering. I won't get into the policy reasons for that, but suffice it to say, the world of litigation is not the "get rich quick scheme" that non-lawyers often characterize it as.

Solutions for the Brickyard 400's Lackluster Attendance

In 1994, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway held the first official running of the Brickyard 400 in front of a crowd that was allegedly approximately 250,000.

In 2016, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway held the 22nd (if my math is right) running of the "Crown Royal 400 at the Brickyard" in front of a crowd that was perhaps 1/4 the size.

What happened?

I will admit that I am not a racing aficionado, so most of my analysis is "from the hip," as they say. However, the people with whom I've spoken have simply said that the Brickyard is a boring race . . . like watching cars play "follow the leader" until they pit, and then having a pit-stop competition.

Boring.

Those in the know have said that because IMS is such a large track (2.5-mile oval), it does not have nearly as much racing action (i.e. passing, bumping, etc.) as other tracks, such as Bristol and Martinsville (roughly 0.5-mile ovals). Certainly, someone who watches racing, and NASCAR, regularly would be able to offer better commentary on why the NASCAR race in Indianapolis is so boring. Nonetheless, that is the general consensus I have heard.

Well, we can't very well rebuild the oval at IMS. However, there is a solution to this staring us in the face: the road course. So far as I can tell, there are a handful of other road races in the NASCAR season, and adding one more, with the possibility of improving attendance at the Brickyard, certainly couldn't hurt.

Add to that the necessity of lowering ticket prices. After all, I can't imagine dropping $100+ on a ticket for a race that can't sell out more than half the stands. NASCAR could take a page from the MegaBus pricing, and sell the first 10,000 tickets for $1 or some other nominal price. Assuredly, those tickets would sell out almost immediately. Perhaps the next 10,000 tickets go for $10. Suddenly, we've got a rather large crowd of people who've paid a small amount for the race; this would enable people to bring their kids (something they really can't do at $100/head) and possibly create lifelong fans.

This is merely a muse, of course, given that the Brickyard is nearly upon us. I do hope that they have better attendance, but I am not optimistic.

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.

 

 

Bloomington - Most Expensive City? (Part 2)

Speaking of incentives in the system, in-state tuition was traditionally based on the notion that in-state students' families had been underwriting the public colleges for a long time and, thus, the children of these citizens of the state should be given preferential treatment in said public colleges.

As state support for public colleges has waned, so too has the preferential treatment. However, as any economist will tell you, prices are sticky. It's hard to suddenly jack up tuition on in-state students and close the gap against out-of-state students. So, out-of-state tuition is raised in concert with in-state tuition, and generally cross-subsidizes in-state tuition. In other words, out-of-state students become profitable.

In a country where certain portions (NY, NJ, the east coast in general) are wealthier than others (IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, AL, etc.), yet these relatively "poor" places have excellent educational institutions, it is understandable that a lot of people in the "wealthier" portions of the country want to send their children to these colleges. If you're someone living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the New York metropolitan area, doesn't it make sense to send your child to a B1G (Big 10) university and save a boatload of money on housing? Compare rent in Bloomington to that in New York City. It's not even close.

Therefore, the rent in cities like Bloomington can be at rates that would be laughable in Fort Wayne or most of Indianapolis. If the alternative is renting a $2500/month shoe box in New York City, a $1400/month swanky loft in Bloomington, IN, seems like a really good deal.

This is my theory of why Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state.

Happy Saturday.

Bloomington - Most expensive city? (Part 1)

I stumbled across this in the Star today.

For those who aren't going to click through, the article is about how Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state. While I suppose this isn't terribly surprising, it got me thinking about Bloomington now vs. Bloomington in the 1990s, when I was a student there.

In the '90s, my tuition at IU was rougly $1,500/semester. My mother worked for IU Health, and that got us a 50% tuition reduction. I suspect that my cost of living at the time was sub-$1,000, so an entire year of school could be financed on approximately $13,000, give or take. While this is more than a kid could make over the summer, it minimized the financial strain on my parents (who thankfully "put me on scholarship" for four years of undergrad studies).

If memory serves, when I moved back to Ft. Wayne after college, I found things to be more expensive in Ft. Wayne. I kind of figured that as the city got larger, the prices did too. This made sense, when I thought about the jump in cost of living from Ft. Wayne to Indianapolis (and there was one when I moved in 2003, but that may have been due in part to a bit of a neighborhood upgrade as well). I always knew Chicago was more expensive than Indy, and NY more expensive than either. Of course, that it made sense to me didn't mean that I liked it, but that was how I understood the world to be.

Now, of course, developments like Bloomington being the most expensive city invariably have me asking why that is. Shooting from the hip, I have a theory:

It used to be (back in the mythical, halcyon days) that college was hard to get into and relatively easy to afford. If people had student loans, they were generally minimal (sub $10,000) and they would generally pay them off within 5 years or so of graduation. This arrangement necessarily involved many people in Indiana paying taxes for a college they could not attend. One can see both the virtue and the vice in this arrangement.

Now, it seems as though the worm has turned, and college (somewhere, not necessarily at the flagship state university) is now relatively easy to get into and difficult to afford. People routinely graduate from college with debilitating debt the size of a mortgage. To compound the issue, there are so many people now going to college that it no longer makes a job candidate stand out, and there is less of a financial premium, to be a college graduate. These are of course aggregate, macro observations.

My belief is that two major policies have contributed to this situation:

First, the state has by and large withdrawn support for public institutions of higher learning. This is likely a combination of a few things:

1. It likely reflects an increasingly libertarian bent in our society that believes that each individual should pay his/her own way and not depend on the public to underwrite their desires. This goes hand in hand with a belief that one values something more if he personally pays for it. . . the whole idea that nobody washes a rental car or mows the grass at a public park.
2. It also likely reflects a conservative view that institutions of higher learning are liberal bastions of proto-socialist thinking.

I make no real comment on the veracity of either of these views, but I do believe that a combination of the two has resulted in less-generous funding of post-secondary educational institutions.

As the state has withdrawn support for public colleges, tuition has gone up as students have been expected to shoulder more of the burden. This is to be expected, in line with the libertarian bent noted above. To fill in this void has stepped the second major policy:

Public/private funding of student loans.

With most loans, if the borrower defaults, the lender winds up eating some of the cost (ask Donald Trump's creditors). This idea is built into the process of acceptance/rejection of loan applications and underwriting of interest rates. The greater the risk that the borrower will default, the higher the interest to pay for that risk in the long run.

When you get a student loan, though, you're generally a terrible credit risk. After all, you're only 18, have no education, no assets, and probably few if any skills.

So, the government steps in and more or less insures your loan. The public pays for this insurance.

Now, we have a situation where the lender is not bearing the risk but gets to reap the profits. Add to this that bankruptcy laws were changed in the mid 00s rendering student loan debt non-discharge-able, and you have a situation designed to put an albatross around the neck of the borrower.

In such a situation, if you were the lender, why wouldn't you extend as much credit as possible? You're going to get paid one way or another, either by the borrower (who can never discharge the debt, no matter how unlikely it is that it will ever get paid) or by the government (if the borrower dies before paying, or defaults). Your profits are a percentage of your loan portfolio.

Add into this situation that, as mentioned above, if you're an 18-year-old kid, you stand very little chance at prosperity in your 40s if you don't go to college.

So, the student has little choice but to take out debt, yet is too young to fully reckon with the consequences of racking up such a debt.

The lending institutions have very little incentive to minimize borrowers' debt obligations or to underwrite their portfolios.

The colleges have very little incentive to control costs, other than avoiding negative publicity.

Nice system we've created here.

Gov. Holcomb & Drug Treatment

"We're not going to arrest our way out of the opioid crisis."

So says Gov. Holcomb, a man for whom I have much respect. While I tend to disagree with the Republican party on many things, their choice to put Eric Holcomb at the helm of the State of Indiana is one decision that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Readers of this blog may be familiar with my previous post regarding drug addiction, i.e. it's not a moral failure. I believe that drug addiction should be treated as a public health crisis, not unlike obesity, instead of a criminal justice problem.

In that light, I was very pleased to see this. Some excerpts:

Governor Eric Holcomb announced Wednesday that Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration’s drug treatment program will be opening five new facilities in Allen, Johnson, Monroe, Vigo and Tippecanoe Counties.

“This is how we are going to attack this problem. We are going to put people first. Even those who are surrounded by darkness,” said Gov. Holcomb.

Bravo Governor! I particularly like the comment about "those who are surrounded by darkness." Anyone who has ever witnessed a loved one struggle with addiction can certainly sympathize with the "darkness" referenced. I'm also heartened to hear the rhetoric about putting people first.

I see this as a refreshing alternative to the "lock 'em up" approach championed by Atty. General Curtis Hill, among many others.

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.

Healthcare - Thoughts on Improvement

As I asked yesterday, what is the end goal of "reforming" the healthcare system in this country? I still haven't heard a good answer to that question, but I read an interesting article by David Frum in the Atlantic yesterday, entitled "How Republicans Can Fix American Health Care."

While he discusses a lot of things associated with the Medicaid expansion, for the purpose of this post, I'm only going to discuss market reforms. I'm not going to debate whether it is a good idea to expand the social safety net (which I believe it is a good idea, but I also respect the undeniable fact that opinions differ as to this).

For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Frum, he was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and the author of the regrettable phrase "Axis of Evil." Notwithstanding several flaws of his, he is a thoughtful conservative who has productive contributions to our debates, I believe. A few excerpts from his Atlantic article:

It’s generally reckoned that half the people who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act did so via Medicaid expansion. The Republican ACA alternative would undo that expansion. Unlike the many regulatory changes Republicans had in mind, such a stripping away of an existing benefit is easy to understand—and a natural target for political payback. No surprise then that the senators flinched.

Well, we will see if they continue to flinch, but OK.

In that third week in March in 2010, America committed itself for the first time to the principle of universal (or near universal) health-care coverage. That principle has had seven years to work its way into American life and into the public sense of right and wrong. It’s not yet unanimously accepted. But it’s accepted by enough voters—and especially by enough Republican voters—to render impossible the seven-year Republican vision of removing that coverage from those who have gained it under the Affordable Care Act. Paul Ryan still upholds the right of Americans to “choose” to go uninsured if they cannot afford to pay the cost of their insurance on their own. His country no longer agrees.

As I've asked before, if I forego a necessary medical treatment because I cannot afford it, is that a triumph of the free market or a human tragedy? I suppose, as the lawyers like to say, "it depends." Anyway, continuing:

The Republican health care plan has been derided as a tax cut plan masquerading as a health plan. The rest of the plan is a mess, it is argued, because Republicans’ highest priority is to lighten the ACA’s tax load on upper-income earners.

This is a refreshingly frank assessment of the modern Republican party. Its priority is to "lighten the . . . tax load on upper-income earners." I suppose we're all entitled to our priorities, but doesn't it seem rather strange that approximately 51% or more of the federal government is dedicated to a proposition that only materially benefits roughly 2% of the population? Perhaps that is why many people don't listen to much from Republicans: because over and over again, these "proposals" have been nothing more than tax cuts for the wealthy paid for with either (a) cuts to the social safety net, or (b) debt that we pass along to our children. Anyway, I'm ranting. Let's see what else Mr. Frum states:

That statement of the problem also points the way to some solutions.

If Republicans are most offended by the way the ACA is paid for, then instead of repealing the whole ACA, they should concentrate their energy on changing its financing. 

If we agree that the goal is to provide universal health care, and we're only arguing about how to pay for it, then I'm listening. I do doubt, however, that federal Republicans much care to provide universal healthcare, given their positions and proposals. However, if we are going to discuss how to finance universal healthcare, I have no loyalty to the present way we do so.

The surtaxes on rich are pitifully inadequate to the job of financing the ACA’s expansion of health coverage. 

Excellent point! I notice that Republicans' insistent refusal to ever raise taxes for any reason has given liberals a too-easy out when proposing their utopian schemes: "we'll just pay for them with taxes on the wealthy." Because Republicans always block taxes on the wealthy, the public rarely sees that this is inadequate to pay for what liberals advocate and the public seems to want. But, if the surtaxes on the rich that are in Obamacare are insufficient to pay for the services it provides, where does the money derive?

That comparatively small revenue stream forces the architects of the ACA to pay for their ambitions in other ways. The most important of those ways is the invisible internal redistribution within the ACA, from young to old and from middle-income to lower income. Healthy young people in the individual market pay much higher premiums than they would have to on a pure risk-adjusted basis. Their excess premiums contribute to reducing the premiums paid by people in their 50s and 60s. Likewise, the ACA offers generous subsidies to lower-income people, but steeply fades them out for workers in the $40 to $50,000 range, who are not poor but who cannot easily afford insurance at market prices either.

Hmmm. Interesting. I can sympathize with this. My family's health insurance premiums, as I've made known, are rather oppressive. To the degree that someone in my position was getting beaten up with rising and inflationary taxes in 1978, today we're getting beaten up with rising and inflationary health insurance premiums, co-pays, etc. But, let's talk about how we pay for subsidies for those who buy their insurance on the market:

The ACA needs a replacement funding stream that yields more revenue and that taxes more broadly. This was the deal that Republicans should have demanded in 2009-2010. It will be harder to achieve today (because with ACA an accomplished fact Republicans now have less to trade), but it still should be their goal. One way to achieve that more difficult goal is to propose funding streams that are not only larger than the surtaxes on high incomes, but that Democrats and liberals will find even more attractive. I’ve long urged a carbon tax as a way to fund health-care expansion. President Trump’s abrupt and unconsidered call for a federal internet sales tax raises another possibility. The U.S. has entered a revolution in retailing that threatens literally millions of jobs. The continuing de facto subsidy to online shopping looks even less justifiable now than ever. Why not a federal tax set to some averaging of state sales taxes on physical stores? Such a tax would raise far more than $35 billion and would equalize the playing field between retailers in a way that helpfully slows the creative destruction of retailing jobs.

Interesting.

At the same time, Republicans should also welcome higher excise taxes on choices that raise healthcare costs: on alcohol, on processed sweeteners, on marijuana where it is legal. (My own wish, and I recognize how impossible this is, would be to tax bullets as well, but that too radically challenges present political dogmas.)

I am certainly listening now, however my skepticism remains as to whether federal Republicans actually want to stabilize the health insurance market and enable people to buy insurance thereon. Part of me honestly believes that they really don't care and just want to cut taxes. However, I will not allege bad faith against them and I will try to take them at their word that they actually want to improve healthcare for the majority of people in this country.

Of course, in addition to how we pay for healthcare, it is also important to address how much we pay for healthcare. Regrettably, again, I have not seen any cost-controlling measures in either GOP "plan" presently on offer other than "free market, something, something, something, lower prices."

The future of health-care cost-cutting in America is top-down cost-cutting, not bottom-up. It’s the providers who will have to be squeezed, not the consumers. 

If healthcare policy is driven by a desire for providers to make money, this will never happen. It does remain to be seen how it will shake out.

To hazard a generalization, America over-invests in medicine, but under-invests in public health. No country on earth does a better job of saving premature and underweight babies than the United States. Few developed countries do a worse job of ensuring that pregnancies come to a full and healthy term. 

Agreed.

 It’s precisely the party less beholden to the medical-industrial complex that is better positioned to act as America's rational health cheapskates.

Also agreed. Which party this is remains to be seen, but as of right now, it looks like both parties are rather beholden to the medical-industrial complex.

As the health-care industry becomes ever more closely tied to the public sector, the GOP—as the party of the private sector—should accept the responsibility to become the party of skepticism about the claims and perquisites of that industry. If the GOP is to be the party of seniors, it cannot also be the party that rationalizes every price demand of the pharmaceutical sector.

Well said. Mr. Frum does have to end on a big "however," though:

A future in which health-care anxieties trouble Americans less will be a future more open to arguments on behalf of entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Economic risk-taking will become more attractive, not less. 

Stated another way, there is no magical tipping point beyond which the country slips irrevocably into socialism, notwithstanding the hysterical screeching of Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

It may not be a coincidence that the Republican drought in presidential voting since 1988 has coincided with the years of most intense national debate over whether all should have health insurance. It’s very possible—and I personally think likely—that Republican chances at the presidency will improve once a vote for the GOP ceases to be a vote against health coverage for all.

I can't really argue with that. It's hard to vote for someone who promises to make health care more expensive for me.

Fireworks, Tolerance, and Trash

Recently, someone was complaining on NextDoor about people letting off fireworks in Meadowood Park. A few thoughts:

First, insofar as there were some comments on the thread about "no hablo inglise," I can't help but ask what the relevance of that is. Would it make a difference if the people doing this are from Mexico or Missouri? What difference does their language make?

Second, to the degree that people complain about fireworks upsetting their dogs, the 4th of July is not going to change its traditions just because your dog gets upset. I accept the same principle as to my kids. Just because it makes it a bit harder to get them to sleep does not mean that I have any right to expect people to stop having fireworks on and around the 4th of July. Expecting them to stop that would be akin to expecting people not to light up their homes for Christmas because the blinking lights are upsetting.

Finally, because I am an equal-opportunity hater, for those who leave the trash from their fireworks all over the place, there is a special place in hell for litterers. Need I say more?

In sum, if you have a problem with fireworks within a week or so of the 4th of July, let it go. Life is too short to be a kill joy. For those who let off their fireworks around the 4th, clean up your mess. We all live here together; a little bit of courtesy combined with a little bit of tolerance goes a long way.

UPDATE: I see that there is more complaining about fireworks from last night. To the complainers, I will reiterate that this is once per year and has been happening for decades. It's not going to stop just because your (insert dog/cat/infant) gets upset because of the noise. I have young children and a dog as well, and some of the noises keep them awake. It is once per year. I'm sure that I do things at least once per year that annoy people around me too. To them, I say thank you for tolerating me and contributing to the greatest neighborhood/small town in America!