Just the Way it is....

People have some deeply held convictions.

Convictions that they allow to influence all they see, know and feel.

I've said before that I live at a kind of crossroads.  People show up who need a shoulder for a little while then they make their way to whatever.

I think my last brush with so-called "romance" was the most stark example of that.

Oh lord!  We're not going there again!  No worries...

But it did show me just how deeply divided otherwise like-minded people can be.  The sin of ideology I call it. 

A sin that takes one small aspect of someone's makeup and inflates it into a lifestyle.  A insular cocoon of circular logic and prejudicial perspectives impenetrable by anything that threatens the ideology.

We are what we are no matter what...That's just the way it is...

No, that's the way you want it.

The saddest part of it all is that the world quickly goes from a wide vista of opportunity to tunnel vision.  Creative thought, compassion, insight is all framed within a narrow view.

I've looked at the other side.  Tried to understand what it was that was so different about me and them.  Spoiler alert, it aint much.

What I found wasn't a pack of rabid savages.  Just fear.  Fear of losing what never really existed.  At least not without acknowledging what the real cost of their utopian vision was.  A vision that wasn't their own by the way. 

We tend to divide ourselves into tribes based on...whatever...

Far more scholarly authorities than I have written a mountain of tomes on the subject.  You've no doubt already seen their work.  I won't bother to rehash it here.

We live in a society that recognizes that we tend to seek out only that which supports our own world view.  The dangerous part is that the media has seized on that premise and eschewed objectivity for a tantalizing revenue stream that preys not on facts but fears.

Conservatives do it.  Liberals are no better.  So long as the other guy is the boogeyman we are sufficiently distracted to cede our own power to propaganda and rhetoric.

The propaganda feeds the machine.  The machine pumps out endless rhetoric and red meat. 

There is no compromise so long as the machine is churning.

Your heroes?  Your pillars of democracy?  They're the face of the machine.  A construct to divide otherwise like-minded people.  To keep poking that sore spot until you wretch and scream in pain.

The drug?  The cure?  Throw a bone to salve the wounds they created.  Just enough relief to keep the faithful working toward their own destruction.

We are in this country literally in the grip of mass scale Stockholm Syndrome.  I don't care what color the map says your state is.  Neither side will ever do anything to upset the machine.

Examples?  Glad you asked...

Obama claimed to fix Student Loans.  Nothing really happened and millions are still indebted to a corrupt system that enslaves borrowers for debt that should never have existed in the first place.

Trump promised prosperity with protectionism the result of which has nearly bankrupted thousands of small businesses and farmers who suddenly find no markets for their goods.  Multinational corporations can care less.  But Mom and Pop?

The saddest thing is that all the time we were waving our banners and wearing our MAGA hats we were surrendering our own power in favor of a fantasy.

A fantasy that will deprive you of life, love and occupation should you identify with the wrong side.

Nothing will change so long as we continue to exist in a fog of ideology political or otherwise. 

This is the true challenge to the evolution of the human race. 

To resist the urges of the lizard brain.  We are where we are because of what we allowed to happen.

This is on me, you and those that came before you. 

But if you're committed to your ideology, have no fear.  Reason has no value and facts are malleable.  Enjoy the appearance of a civil society and the shiny chains you've made for yourself.

Some of us knew but nobody cared to do anything about it.

Milennials

I'm in a weird place.

Not physically weird like the furniture is nailed to ceiling or anything like that.  No, I'm stuck between two human generations that are vastly different but more alike than they realize.  I believe time will bear that out but for now it's just a hunch.

I hear a lot about how millennials have an entitlement mentality.  Well, I can tell you that such condemnations aren't exclusive to them nor are they anything new.

The civil rights movement was accused of similar "transgressions" against society until the accused flipped the term around on their accusers.

Damn right that people shouldn't be judged based on their complexion!  That's as legitimate an "entitlement" as expecting to be able to walk down the street without a bunch of morons wearing sheets hanging you from the nearest tree.

It really boils down to a heartfelt belief in social justice.

Social Media, the Internet and information overload in general have enabled social activism for causes a world away.  But for many millennials it seems that it's enough to tap the "Like" key and call it a victory for the cause.

The problem is is that somewhere along the line social justice has gotten mixed in with Beyonce' videos and video game streams.  Just another element of a social profile.

Worse, it's my generation that caused it.  We are the helicopter parents who banned the word "No" and instilled the belief that everything our kids did was wonderful and had a higher purpose.  Even if the brat was a borderline sociopath.

I've frequently used the phrase "T-ball trophy" to express my disdain for this kind of parenting.  There's a narcissistic undertone that comes out of it that says that because a belief is dearly held and popular that all others are invalid.  It all goes straight back to my generation who were determined to throw out the lessons of 100 generations of procreation and somehow expect a better result in our offspring.

It's where the entitlement charge comes from as well.

How can we blame millennials for dearly held left-field ideologies when we never told them they could be wrong?

Ladies and Gentlemen of Generation X.   You've raised a generation of suckers that will believe and suffer anything so long as it plays into the fantasy world we created for them.

I've seen nothing that better illustrates this point than the groundswell of support for Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Most of which comes from millennials.

There's nothing wrong with that per se' but when asked about the reasons for supporting him you hear a chorus of anti-establishment rhetoric with little substance.

Hey, I'd love to see all those things that Bernie is promising come to pass too.  But reality says that he's pushing an ideology.  He's selling a product no different than an IPhone or  a designer handbag.  It's promotion without substance with a marketing program that promises instant gratification.  Offer anything less at your own peril.

In fact even President Obama suffered a backlash shortly after transitioning from candidate to President because many supporters thought he should be doing more than he was.  As though the heavens were supposed to open up and vanquish all the evils of the world the moment he took the oath of office.

I've gotten into discussions with millennials over this and the common thread always comes back to a hyperactive belief in the need for immediate change without delay.  Consequences be damned!  We're going to save the planet and bring income equality to the world in a month.  If only these old "establishment" types would just hurry up and die already!

I can appreciate the commitment and the ambition especially when it's focused in a direction I happen to personally agree with.  But I don't buy anything based on its marketing.  I dig deeper which runs headlong into the entitlement mentality.

It seems just because you want something it should happen regardless of the consequences.  Ideologies are great for those weened on instant gratification but they ultimately end up as little more than lip service.

It's not that I believe that the millennial generation is any more naive or less intelligent.  I think they're responding to the programming we gave them.

Which is interesting because at some point in life you throw off that programming.  They say as we age we tend to get more conservative and cautious simply because we have more to lose and less time to recover.

I wouldn't be surprised that at some point when I'm just about ready to collect my paltry social security check of $1200 a month, the millennial generation is going to look a lot more like my parents, the baby boomers.

Remember that young baby boomers were just as much social activists as millennials are now.  In fact my generation spent years dodging the barbs for having no social conscience.  We were the "Do nothing" generation while our parents were lauded for changing social conscience and their parents for ushering in the modern age after winning world war 2.

But our parents eventually got older and with it more conservative.  For the  most part they took advantage of the trappings of the civilized world, raised families and relegated their activism to collections of Time Life "Sounds of the 60's." CD's.  Social justice was important but the climb up the corporate ladder even more so.

If any generation got idled it was theirs.  We still deal with pay inequality for women, stagnant wages and erosion of personal liberties.  What happened to all that activism in the 40 year's they've been in power?

Knee jerk legislation, mandatory sentencing for minor offenses and a income inequality unrivaled since the days of the 19th century robber barons.

I see a similar future for the millennial generation.  At some point you have to look past the packaging if you don't want to end up with maggots in your Twinkies.

If Generation X is to be saddled with the label of "doing nothing" it was simply because we didn't have the power or the cause to do to otherwise.  The world was finally made in an image acceptable to our parents and for a long time we didn't know any better.   As their children we didn't really have anything to complain about other than possible nuclear annihilation from cowboy politics..

You can, however, point to Generation X as the modern root of anti-corporate sentiment.  The boomers may have hated " The Man" but that pretty much ended when "The Man" started offering up company cars and golden parachutes.  The term "wage slave" entered the popular vocabulary during my generation as productivity went up and compensation went down.

In short, we were sold a bill of goods.  We were promised what our parents had but in the end we ended up being the first generation to have less than our parents.  All this while saddled with debilitating debt caused by an economy built on the premise that you could never really afford to buy anything.

Have you seen those "End of Life" insurance ads on TV.  Now you can't even get away from your bills when you die!  Since when is it commonplace to saddle your relatives with your bills?  Hell, when I go, just throw me off some cliff in the wilderness and let the coyotes get a meal.  How's that for environmentally friendly....

Still, with all that, I'm fortunate to have lived in a time where I saw technology rise from novelty to world changing.

When I was a kid music was still listened to on LP's and Cassette  tapes.  From there I saw the rise of the personal computer, the advent of mobile technology to now where connectivity is expected to be ubiquitous.  

So to millennials I can say this.  I get what you're after but don't dismiss my skepticism at your ideology.  I'm glad that your market power has forced a change in education and social awareness.  Just be aware that what you may think is anti-establishment is the same bill of goods that we were sold some 20 years ago.

And don't beat yourself up too badly if you realize somewhere around your mid 40's that liking a Facebook page wasn't really activism.  Step back and see what you've really accomplished before condemning those who've gone before you.

Yes, I still say it's my generation's fault that millennials seem a bit impatient and naive but so is any young generation just coming into their own power.  You can make the changes you want to see but it's not going to come from YouTube or social media or voting for unrealistic ideologies.

It will come from a unified effort toward real change.  An effort with a foundation that however flawed came from those that walked the path before you.

#sotu : Look, I like President Obama but...

Hey, make no mistake, I'm positive the country is in far better shape than it would have been with anyone else in office the past 7 years.

It's an undisputed fact that given a largely hostile congress over 3/4 of his presidency, great things have at least been attempted.

• I don't deny that getting healthcare for those that didn't even have the option because of a pre-existing condition or lack of an employer sponsored plan is a good thing.
• I don't deny that throwing a lifeline to the American auto industry saved the last vestige of American manufacturing.
• I don't deny that because of programs like HARP and mortgage lending reform families are still in their homes.
• I don't deny that there's been some improvement in how student loan programs are administered.
• I don't deny that some people that didn't have work after the financial meltdown have managed to find something.

But let's get real here.  

There's a lot of fuzzy math and hollow declarations of victory to consider.  Let's start with the thing that makes everyone's world go round, money...

Banking reform has been largely toothless and your money can be just as much at risk as it was before the crash.  Worse, many of the people who caused the financial crisis are still holding the reigns and are even richer today than they were 8 years ago.

It's no secret that the top 3% hold more than 1/2 the nation's wealth and that's not going to change anytime soon. The tax rate isn't going to move if you're a billionaire and in spite of claims to the contrary there's little desire on either side of the aisle to change that when campaign coffers are frequently filled by that top 3%.

Many of which made their billions on subprime lending, oil futures and predatory credit and collection practices.  The rest made their money on Wall street which favors those businesses that keep their overhead low ( AKA Wages) and profits high.  So what has the Obama presidency done about all this inequity?

The "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" or CFPB.  Look, the old dogs haven't changed their tricks.  The best that can be said of the CFPB is that your credit card statement is a little easier to read.  Oh yeah, and they win "symbolic" lawsuits against defunct diploma mills.  

BUT...

It hasn't stopped abusive junk debt buyers from hounding hapless victims over debts long past any statute of limitations.  The only defense, an expensive legal action or bankruptcy..  With millions still in financial distress due to the financial meltdown, look for this to only get worse over the next few decades.

Speaking of money, don't get me started on student loans.  There's been a lot of flowery, happy talk over President Obama's tenure but unless you're a newly minted high school graduate don't expect much relief.

Yes it's true.  Under this President Federally backed student loans are now administered by the Department of Education not greedy "servicers" who made billions by fleecing borrowers.  A practice that was often in collusion with private schools with shady reputations charging more per credit hour than Princeton or Harvard.

But if you're not 20 something, things aren't much different.  Yes, your payments may be tied to your income and not exceed 10% but that's been available  for over a decade.  It was one of the options you had when you consolidated your school loans.  Which many did mostly because their interest rate was higher than they were paying for their mortgage and frequently so was the monthly payment.

Still, nothing's been done or even mentioned about the last remaining loophole that all those "servicers"  milk.  That being the scourge of capitalized interest which over time can swell a $25000 loan to $40000 over a decade.  If your student loan originated sometime around Bush 2's second term or before then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course the reason most people go to college is to get a better job.  Nobody wants to be relying on Walmart or Burger King to support a family.  Yet that's the bulk of all those "new" jobs out there unless you count the dead end $10 per hour jobs that have sprung up in call centers in all of those "right to work" states.  

Every State of the Union address uses fuzzy math.  Speech writers pick and choose the most favorable of statistics to present a glowing picture.  Only once in the past century has a sitting president had to admit that the state of the union wasn't so hot.  Say what you will about Gerald Ford but at least he was honest about it!

So when I keep hearing about that magical 5% unemployment rate it drives me insane.  Much like President Bush 41's clueless V.P, Dan Quayle pointing to a Help Wanted sign at a Burger King as a sign of economic recovery on the 1992 campaign trail I don't see the substance in the numbers.  It's still harder than it should be for talented people to get the kind of work that they not only deserve but in most cases went into substantial debt for.  

What those numbers don't count are the millions who've given up not because of laziness but rather due to a lack of opportunities.  It's a common practice in technical fields, for example, to post positions with no intention of filling them in hopes of importing cheaper talent through work visas.  A practice nobody has addressed in any substantial way.  CEO's decry the lack of skilled labor pools while simultaneously dismissing experienced but "expensive" talent.

Lest we forget those who've long since fallen off the unemployment rolls.  2008 was almost a decade ago and many still haven't recovered.  Nor are they counted.

More fuzzy math.  According to the White House's own website the current rate of Americans without health insurance has dropped to 8.8%.  An attractive number to campaign on but just like the unemployment figures, largely meaningless.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to get everyone medical insurance at an affordable rate.  Thing is, the only way the government can possibly know how many people are covered with any degree of certainty is through tax filings.  It asks you right on the form and if you answer in the negative then you get to figure out your penalty.

But if you're making less than $11000, chances are you're not filing taxes and considering many people are only finding low wage part time work that number could be huge.  

More fuzzy math.  Worse, many of those who've signed up for the ACA have found that their premiums and co-pays have in some cases doubled. 

Regardless of claims to the contrary, the only thing the Affordable Care act has done is to swell the coffers of insurance companies and punish those who often find the penalty cheaper than the insurance premiums!   It's a plan the Insurance companies love.  And why not?  It was their lobbyists that influenced the legislation and effectively killed any hope of a single payer, nationalized health care system.  Add a profit motive to a government mandated program and a whole lot of nothing happens.  Sure there's a few who benefit, good for them but most of us haven't.

The saddest part of the whole speech came near the end where the President essentially told working age people in their 40's and 50's, tough luck.  Too bad if you found your personal economy destroyed by a few greedy people peddling mortgages to Burger King employees.  If you're over 40 your best bet is to just wait it out till Social Security kicks in.  So much for hope and change.

It's not that I think President Obama is a bad president.  In fact I'm confident that he was the right guy at the right time.  Anyone else would likely have seen the "Great Recession" truly descend into another "Great Depression." 

Still, even the President had to grudgingly admit that all this economic growth has benefited those at the top of the money tree the most.  The rest of us are still fighting over scraps. 

You can thank a congress more concerned with vendettas and cronyism than meaningful legislation for that.  The past 8 years have been more about who gets to marry who and dismantling healthcare reforms than anything else.  Expect more of the same if another Democrat takes over.  It's been an 8 year grudge match that even extended to his own party.  So it's no wonder that much of President Obama's agenda has amounted to less than was hoped for.

While the President's speech was hopeful and steadfast in his determination he knows that with a lame duck presidency and an obstinate congress his words will ultimately  ring hollow.  Look at the speech as nothing more than a platform for his successor,

Raincheck on the Fiscal Cliff

Article originally posted on Technorati as Raincheck on the Fiscal Cliff

If your thoughts have been occupied by the "fiscal cliff"  like a bad New Year's hangover there is some relief, at least for now.  Today's passage of HR-8 (The Tax relief Extension Act) provides among other things a 1 year extension to Federal emergency unemployment benefits as well as a permanent extension of tax cuts for those making less than $400,000.  Both measures that could keep the economy from slipping back into recession in the near term. 

Still, on both sides of the aisle this last minute bipartisan agreement comes up far short of the "Grand Bargain."  Spending cuts are only "deferred" for two months leaving plenty of debate for the incoming 113th congress.  It seems the only part of a comprehensive overhaul of government spending cuts and revenue increases that either side can agree on is the name.

To most Republicans on the hill, a "Grand Bargain" must include severe cuts in funding and tighter eligibility requirements for "entitlement" programs including Social security and Medicare.  Any new government program must have a corresponding funding source either from cuts in other entitlements or quantifiable revenue streams otherwise known as tax increases.  With most of the House Republicans still adhering to the Norquist pledge they're going to need different shorthand for "revenue." 

Republicans also chafe at the prospect of "overburdening" the well heeled with a bigger tax bill for fear of hurting job creation.  It is large, not small business that drives the economy in the conservative view.   Increasing taxes on them can only result in economic retaliation.  If it sounds familiar it is indeed the theory of trickledown economics from the Reagan era.

To most Democrats in congress, a "Grand Bargain" encourages investment in social programs, protection of entitlements and increased taxation on high earners.  Incidentally, what constitutes a "High earner" has been a major bone of contention during the haggling over the fiscal cliff.  Tax loopholes long employed by businesses to shelter income as well as subsidies to large corporations like big oil would also be eliminated under the "ideal" democratic plan.  

All of this under the banner of "tax fairness" which asks more of those who have "benefitted the most"  to help those who have not.  Of course bearing the label of "tax and spend" democrats makes their proposals subject to increased scrutiny from their Republican counterparts. A condemnation seemingly validated by funding sources that often look more like a sidewalk shell game than a legitimate revenue stream.  Republicans often cite President Obama's$700 billion Medicare savings plan as a revenue source as an example. 

Where republicans now argue the need for "fiscal responsibility" in funding social programs,  Democrats are quick to remind them of their lack of the virtue in recent history.   A 4trillion dollar price tag for the Iraq war and 1.2trillion for the Afghan war to date has only added to the balance on the national "credit card."  Numbers republicans refuse to address and democrats love to remind them of.

While disaster has been averted for now expect little in the way of increased cooperation going forward.  The deal passed Tuesday night by the House was born more of self-preservation than magnanimity.  None in congress wanted to bear the heat of a constituency thrown back into a crippling recession born out of legislative inaction. 

The logjam of the "Fiscal Cliff"  is born once again out of political dogma.  Where Democrats believe in government being a catalyst for economic growth Republicans see it as an impediment.  Not since the Civil war has a congressional body been so divided by ideology and put the fortunes of the country in such peril. 

If you require evidence, look no further than the close  of Tuesday night's House session.

Amidst impassioned pleas to act on a Senate bill that would authorize 60.4 billion in Sandy relief, the Republican leadership decided instead to end the session.  Cries of "Speaker!, Speaker!" left hanging in the air as the Speaker pro tempore Steve Womack (R-Ar) quickly left the chair, his only response a shrug and outstretched hands.

Fanatical ideology still holds the reigns of congress.  It remains to be seen if progress can replace it.  

Why the Conservative Media got it wrong

Article first published as Why the Conservative Media Got it Wrong on Technorati.

If there was any question as to whether there is such a thing as a conservative media it was settled in the run-up to  the Presidential election.  From Forbes to the WashingtonTimes,  right-leaning  media outlets predicted a close but decisive win for Mitt Romney.

Their assertions were based almost entirely on the Romney campaign platform which focused on perceived weaknesses in the Obama presidency. Let's take a look at a few of them...

The weak Economy...

"Obama and congressional Democrats are clearly to blame for the dismal economy." said Policymic.com...

The argument ignores basic economics if not the calendar. 

For one thing, Economists of any stripe agree that it's impossible to completely recover from a worldwide economic recession (near depression) in less than four years.  It also ignores Wall Street, a favorite economic indicator of the media.

Speaking of Wall Street...

Throughout the Romney campaign President Obama was accused of being "Bad for Business"

Obamaand the belligerent anti-business cartel running Congress have created anincreasingly hostile environment for businesses to operate in. from the Weekly Standard...

On January 20th 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 8279.63.  Election day 2012  found the close at 13245.68.

We all know that Wall Street isn't main street  but the media treats the securities markets as an economic barometer.  A 5000 point spread is hard to ignore.  A number conspicuously absent from the Republican campaigns.

Let's try another one...

Legislative gridlock that could only be resolved with a Romney presidency...

"Obamahas needlessly created political enemies among the electorate.", again from Policymic.com

This one is pure fabrication unless the mere existence of the man is reason enough to despise him.  Remember Republican Senator Mitch McConnell's quote?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For the two years since the quote to the National Journal, McConnell has insisted he was taken out of context.  Considering the almost intractable ideologies we've seen in congress throughout the President's first term I'm not sure what other context would apply. 

Both parties were aware of the frustration of the electorate with approval ratings leading up to the election hovering at 17%, an historic low.  "My way or the highway" isn't compromise and even a casually informed voter knows that the President can only propose not write legislation.  After that he has to wait for something to come to his desk  to sign.  Misdirection and the fallacy of the straw man. 

Finally, the straw that was to break the back of any hope of  the President's reelection.

 Democratsare not as motivated as they were in 2008. thanks again Policymic.com...

This one was more wishful thinking than calculated advantage...

Even in the face of reduced voting hours and recent challenges to early voting laws Obama voters turned out in force.   In many cases standing hours in line to cast their ballot.  Chants of "Let Us Vote" still ringing in the electorate's ears from the weekend before the election.

Whether or not voter suppression was going on, the suggestion alone was enough of a motivation to engage the ambivalent.

So how could conservative media get it so wrong? 

"MittRomney will win big tonight.  His popular vote margin will be between 3 –5%.  He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to217,"  Steve Forbes, Nov 6, 2012

Three possible scenarios come to mind. 

·    The people writing this stuff are just pandering to their readers who are comprised largely of well heeled conservatives. 

·    They based their assumptions on campaign rhetoric without any fact checking.  The second Presidential debate should have discouraged that route.

·    They're just the media arm of the Republican party.

None are good options and all call into question the standards of the publication.  Popular media is no longer under any type of fairness doctrine, however,  short of libel.  That's allowed media outlets to safely engage in a political bias.    Nobody would confuse Fox News with Mother Jones for example. 

In the end I offer no cautionary admonition against such gaffs.  If anything this is simply an  example of media consumption (or creation) based on individual biases.  Most bias is usually based on at least some factual information even if it's of our own creation .

Politics as Product

Article first published as Politics as Product on Technorati.

Never has there been such a splendid example that we as a society are severely afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.  This flavor of ADD  is far from the inattentive child nervously fidgeting in his classroom, however.  

No, this is an affliction of the first world dominated by the churn of  consumerism.   It expresses itself in everything from fad to fashion and increasingly to critical thinking as well.

We in the first world have become so conditioned to reacting to a marketing message that we require no further information to make a decision.  We make the choice based on the promotion we most easily identify with.  No further deliberation is entertained. 

We've come to expect all of our information to be packaged in this way.  Politics enjoy no immunity.

Our impatience is reflected in the flood of campaign ads that have plagued our airwaves for the past year.  Probably the most obvious example is the current U.S. presidential race.  To date, both candidates for president have raised over 2 Billion dollars for their campaigns with approximately 1.5 billion of that spent thus far. 

Half truths, errors of omission and inflated context are the tools of political persuasion and they easily translate to the world of marketing.  Politics promotes the image by obscuring the product. 

FedEx Office Print Online Large order 20% Discount

We choose our leaders with less care than our favorite sports team.  That's by design and the reason why political positions are largely parroted from political propaganda.  Politicians know voters have a low tolerance for long-winded technical arguments.  Instead they choose a popular position with their base and relentlessly repeat the same message regardless of its veracity.

Remember the Go-Daddy commercials?  In 30 seconds we knew who they were but only because we were constantly exposed to scantily clad models that appealed to a core demographic.   How many of us tried them based on a subconscious reaction to those ads instead of their reputation?

It works just as well for politics as it does for web hosting.   Think about where you get your political news.  Is it C-Span or are you more interested in the packaged offerings of Fox News or MSNBC?

Let's look at a current hot button political issue as an example...

Is it really the fault of a sitting president that the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929 is still affecting the economy?

It is if you ignore the boring technical argument that it took a decade and a world war to bring the U.S. out of the great depression.   

Unfortunately, our short attention spans won't allow the retort.  We crave instant gratification and sway toward the product that promises it.  Ironically, If challenged we frequently justify our position based on that same marketing construct.  It's circular logic which dovetails nicely with our distaste for depth.

Perhaps it's time to examine how informed we really are.  

Supreme Court Hears First Arguments on the Affordable Care Act

Article first published as Supreme Court Hears First Arguments on the Affordable Care Act on Technorati.

The United States Supreme Court began hearing arguments today concerning the constitutionality of the Affordable Care act.  This is the beginning of a 3 day process where the 9 justices will hear arguments related to whether the act violates constitutional protections. 

Today's 90 minute oral arguments  concerned whether or not the Supreme Court could even hear the case.

At the center of the arguments was the definition of a tax as it pertained to Supreme Court jurisdiction  and whether the penalty for non-compliance constitutes one .  If the court finds it is and agrees with the 4th circuit court's lower ruling that the penalty is a tax based on using the IRS as a collection mechanism then all further arguments could cease.

That end would come about because under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 or AIA, a challenge to taxation can't be heard until the tax has actually been levied.  Since the Affordable Care Act's mandatory compliance provisions don't come into play till 2014, the challenge would have to wait till the 2015 tax filing season when the first penalties had been assessed.

Arguing that the AIA was applicable to the case were Gregory Katsas  Former Bush Administration justice department official and Robert A. Long former assistant to the United States Solicitor General .  Arguing the federal Government's position that the penalty is not a tax was U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act came about to prevent plaintiffs in a federal tax case from receiving benefits derived from not paying the assessment while the case was ongoing.  Instead the tax is expected to be collected when assessed with plaintiffs then filing for refund.  Suit can then be filed if the IRS denies the refund which would provide the necessary foundation to bring a challenge to the tax law itself.

Tuesday's scheduled oral arguments will consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate itself.  Wednesday morning's oral arguments are centered around whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act is legally viable if the mandate is stuck down. 

The final arguments are scheduled to be heard on Wednesday afternoon and concern the challenge made by 26 states to the act's Medicaid provision.  This part of the Affordable Care Act would force expansion of the state run Medicaid programs to individuals not currently covered by the program.  The state's argument claims the provision would negatively impact budgets and amount to an debilitating federal mandate. 

Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink

Article first published as Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink on Technorati.

American political coverage is best consumed raw and in small doses free of commercial influence.   I'm not a political junkie by any means so I choose my sources carefully.  Lately it's seems the arguments have degenerated into nothing more than skewed utopian fantasies packaged for traditional media sources.  That leads me to C-span for what I at least believe to be unfiltered political news and events.

The first bit of programming I encountered in my latest consumption was coverage of the Arizona Republican party's Lincoln day lunch and straw poll with guest of honor Rick Santorum, darling of the Tea Party conservatives.

 After his speech the local right wing heroes were paraded up one by one starting with the recently recalled Arizona State Senator, Russell Pearce.  Badly in need of a speechwriter, his poorly constructed message included sexual references and a joke about somebody's scrotum as well as the obligatory "yay for us" message.  No substance there.

He was followed by the equally infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (currently under Federal investigation for criminal abuse of power) who spent most of his time at the podium playing the wounded victim of all those "nasty Democrats."  Not much of substance there either aside from his announcement that he's going to present his report on President Obama's birth certificate on March 1st. In the same breath he proclaimed how he didn't go looking for media attention.   Truly your tax dollars at work.

It's no wonder Arizona was the last territory to achieve statehood in the continental 48. 

Later on I watched part of a program on the Occupy Wall Street Strategy forum where a collection of progressive activists calling themselves the San Francisco 99 percent Coalition spoke of the current ills of capitalism and government in general. 

At a forum held at a San Francisco Unitarian church, guests included: Democrat Rocky Anderson,( Salt Lake City Mayor from 2000 to 2008), Dave Welsh (US Labor Against the War and the San Francisco Labor council), Margaret Flowers (Pres. Candidate and Occupy DC organizer) as well as Tom Gallagher (former Mass. state rep and Progressive Democrats of America . 

The meeting was moderated by Rose Aguilar of KALW Radio and was a veritable gallery of Left wing activists with representation ranging from Democrats to self-proclaimed Socialists.  There was no room for moderates with more than one participant accusing President Barack Obama of being a Republican.  Another audience member overtly suggested the end of capitalism in Toto. 

What was striking in both examples was the extreme viewpoints being offered as a moderate position.  Nothing short of complete capitulation to their ideology would satisfy either assembly.  Should these two groups ever occupy the same room I have no doubt that blood would spill.

It's almost amusing when you consider that both sides basically want the same thing.  Both seek to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.  Of course the most heated exchanges generally concern what constitutes a baby.

There was another program I watched between these two.  It was a discussion with Peter Orszag (Former director of the Office and Management and Budget under the Obama Administration) on the economy and reasons for its slow recovery.  Like any presentation on economics there were lots of charts and references to indicators of one sort or another.  There was one chart I found particularly interesting, however.  The chart showed a relationship between the decline of political moderates and the economy.  It seems there is a direct relationship between political ideology in Washington and the speed and strength of an economic recovery. 

With division in congress rising to a level on par with the first Continental Congress circa 1786, it appears that extreme ideology not only degenerates the discussion but the economy as well.  With the decline in political moderates and the polarization of the two dominant political parties it's no surprise that compromise comes only after brinkmanship. 

Ultimately it seems that extreme political views serve no productive purpose other than to foster political gridlock and sound bites for a depraved mass media.  In a country with a voracious appetite for reality shows that sensationalize conflict it's not surprising that political antagonism is so popular on the news.  Both political camps use ever escalating rhetoric to espouse radical views they can't reasonably hold.

 It's unlikely that extreme conservatives at the Lincoln day luncheon would choose to live in Hitler's Germany any more than progressives at the occupy wall street event would choose Soviet Russia.  In that light, extremism has no merit as "My way or the highway" rarely provides either outcome.

Financing Education, another mortgage crisis in the making?

Originally published on Technorati as Financing Education, Another Mortgage Crisis in the Making

Every once in awhile you see an article come up about Federal Student Loan programs and this week I saw two.

Reuters published an article a few days ago suggesting some fuzzy math by FinAid.org's Mark Kantrowitz concerning the nation's total student loan debt. It suggested that Kantrowitz may have overstated the number and was actually more like 610 to 800 Billion dollars. Not quite the 1 trillion dollar number being bandied about but historically large nonetheless.

On the political side Ron Paul (Republican candidate for president) in an interview on Sunday's (10/23/2011) Meet the Press on NBC said, "he'd kill the loan program eventually if he were president". His comments were framed in the context of higher education costs being inflated by government intervention.

While it's refreshing that the magnitude of the problem is coming to light, I've yet to see any real action to change it. Last year as part of President Obama's health care reform act, new student loans were going to be directly administered by the federal government. The goal was to eliminate the loan servicers who are in effect the middlemen of the student loan industry. Their function was to handle the administrative aspects of the Federal student loan programs adding fees and costs to the borrowers total indebtedness as well as to the Federal government.

While a welcome change, the legislation did virtually nothing for current loans. Student loan servicers haven't gone anywhere and as student debt grows it's a sure bet that a portion of that increase can be attributed directly to fees and gaming of the system by both schools and loan servicers.

The issue is that this isn't a fair game; in fact it's got worse odds than a Vegas slot machine. As I look at the overall condition of the economy it's not a stretch to believe that default on student loans is going to be the next financial bubble to collapse taking the government backed student loan program with it as well as the banks participating in it.

The Federal student loan programs were meant to give an opportunity to those who'd otherwise not have it. At its core it was meant to back education loans made by private banks with federal money virtually eliminating any risk of non-payment to the bank.

Let's make this point crystal clear. The bank that loaned you the money is at absolutely no risk of default from giving you a student loan. That's why you almost never had to produce a credit report or collateralize the loan. The Federal government in essence vouched for you.

Of course as it is with most government programs without adequate oversight things eventually went wrong. Private Schools and profiteering middlemen (loan servicers) have been able to game the system with increasing tuition rates and complex loan terms. Banks frequently bundle and sell student loans using the loan servicer as a kind of broker. In my own experience, my student loans have been serviced by two servicers and owned by at least 4 different banks since their origination.
Sound familiar? It should. It's not unlike the packaging and reselling of mortgages or the operation of the derivatives market.

The school's role in this has been to; increase tuition, raise the number of required "filler" classes unrelated to the degree program and in the most egregious cases direct their financial aid departments to promote programs more favorable to their relationship with preferred lenders.

It's easy to say "Caveat Emptor" but then how many of us really understand the terms of our loan agreements or their connection to the financial markets that have corrupted the process.

Once you're in the system you do have certain benefits from having a government backed student loan such as the ability to defer payments due to unemployment or disability. The down side is that you suffer the penalty of "capitalized interest" each time you need to defer a loan payment. Your entire balance is recalculated to encompass the unpaid interest into the principal. Over the life of a loan that can mean as much as an extra 10% to the original principal. Add in the standard 3% to 8% standard interest on the loan and you can quickly find yourself digging an ever deeper financial hole.

With more of us barely getting by, exercising options such as loan consolidation, payment deferment or both becomes more likely. Consolidation can lower payments but your term extends indefinitely. This makes it harder to pay down the principal since the amortization schedule becomes a moving target.

 Most consolidation and income sensitive repayment programs try to front load the loan so that only interest is being paid for most of the loan's life with principal payments only applied much further down the line.

This sounds familiar as well, it's not unlike like the interest only mortgages being written before 2008.

There's no end to the traps a borrower can fall into and I won't even get into the dire consequences of default on a student loan. While recent changes help new borrowers, something needs to be done for those already encumbered by a corrupt system.

I'd suggest that after 10 years of repayment history that no more interest can be charged and all payments go directly to the principle balance of the loan. I'd also outlaw capitalized interest as it's a hidden extra cost which is unjustifiable due to the simple fact that the lender still receives interest payments and has no risk. I understand fees to offset risk and that's fair. A government backed loan offers no risk which raises such fees and practices to the level of extortion.

Regardless of who's talking point it is, nothing real has been done for those truly affected. Until it is nothing being said has worth outside of today's 30 second sound bite