Nevada jumps on the bandwagon

 

The Nevada Legislature has decided the Silver State is behind the times with respect to assisted suicide / medical homicide (your pick folks).  State Democrats have introduced  SB 189 which helps your MD stay out of jail if either of you decide to speed up your passage to eternity.  Not so well publicized is corollary legislation, SB 165, a little Valentine's Day present to hospitals with beds tied up by terminally ill patients.  Wesley Smith describes how it's supposed to work:   

Imagine your mother is in the hospital. She has written an advance medical directive instructing that her life be maintained even if things look very bleak. She has told you personally in an intense and intimate conversation, that she wants you to make sure everything is done to let her fight for her life.

A year later, your mother has a stroke and is fighting for life in an ICU. You try to do as she wanted, you instruct her doctors to maintain her life. But they say no.  She is very unlikely to recover, and even if she does, she will be seriously disabled. Her “time” has come, they say. And then, they unilaterally remove her life support over your strenuous objections.

Can't put a dollar value on life?  Oh yes you can and if this goes through we're going to find out exactly what it is. 

Up in Canada, they're way ahead of us on this one.  It started in Quebec, billed as a progressive measure, but all along the dirty little secret was it was really all about saving money.   Now, Canucks figure they're going to save better than $100M a year putting patients down.   It's gotten way out of hand in Belgium and Holland where "assisted suicide" is now the norm and even the advocates are alarmed by the results.  

This is always billed as "dying with dignity" but it doesn't work out that way for an awful lot of people, if experience elsewhere is any guide.  Beware the law of unintended consequences.

-- Mike Power 

It's an emergency!

Cue the pearl-clutching and hand-wringing about President Trump's declaration of a National Emergency over the border wall.    Democrats are determined not to "let the President shred the Constitution" (CNN).  Republicans are also warning the President, albeit sotto voce.

If anyone in Congress is choked about this they have only themselves to blame.  Elizabeth Goitein in the Atlantic summarizes it nicely.  After abuses during the Watergate era, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976, forcing the President to formally declare a National Emergency, enumerate the powers sought, and report back every 6 months on the state of the emergency.   Congress can vote to "undeclare" the emergency when these reports arrive and the emergency expires in a year in any event - unless renewed by the President.

So, how has Congress been doing?  Well since then presidents have declared 58 National Emergencies, 31 of which are still in effect, some dating from the 1980's.  Many are worthy of continuation and renewal but there are a lot that could use a second look (ABC News).  We're still dealing with National Emergencies involving Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Libya, Somalia and Burundi.   

And how about that oversight?  Politico sums it up:

Yet in the 42-plus years since the National Emergencies Act was passed, Congress has not met a single time—let alone every six months, as prescribed under the law—to debate whether a national emergency declared by the president should be reviewed and reconsidered. Perhaps out of uninterest, partisanship, cowardice or all of the above, lawmakers in both parties have consistently failed to enforce the one section of the law that bestows upon the legislative branch the ability to exert power and influence over the entire process. Across multiple congresses, over multiple decades, Congress has consistently failed to hold the president accountable and ensure that the president’s authority does not rise to that of a king.

The real problem here for the major party establishments is that a totally unpredictable outsider is in the White House, trying out the levers of power.   And discovering that Congress has through neglect given the president a lot of power.  They are also discovering that it might not be as easy as they'd like to stop him.  Quinta Jurecic at Lawfare notes that:

This is not ‘sovereign is he who decides on the exception,’ but a president exercising power delegated to him by a co-equal branch of government consistent with the structure of separation of powers—and likewise subject to review in litigation by another co-equal branch of government.

 So - it looks like after 43 years Congress will finally sit down on or about July 15 and - for the first time - review a declaration of National Emergency.

Congress has delegated too many of its powers to the executive branch over the years, notably the right to declare war.   The recent House resolution on the war in Yemen is a welcome break from the past.  It's about time Congress took their responsibilities under the Constitution more seriously instead of playing politics with the executive branch.  Our freedoms are on the line when they rubber stamp these emergencies. It's about time we sent some people to Congress who are committed to their constituents as much as their party. 

-- Mike Power

Democratic & Republican party elites have lost the plot.

J.D. Vance on why the elites running the Democratic and Republican parties have abandoned ordinary Americans to serve their own self interests.

Some quotes:

Well, at a big level the Democratic Party increasingly represents professional class elites and Republicans represent middle and working class wage earners in the middle of the country. Now I will say I think Democratic leaders kind of get this. If you look at the big proposals from the 2020 presidential candidates: Universal child care, debt-free college, even medicare for all which is framed as this lurch to the left, but is really just a big hand-out to doctors, physicians, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. The sort of get that they’re the party of the professional class and a lot of their policies are geared towards making life easier for professional class Americans.

If you talk to people who spent their lives in DC ... who work on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think-tanks—now this isn’t true of everybody—but a lot of them actually don’t like the people who are voting for Republican candidates these days.

And who will speak for us leftovers in the middle?

THE ALLIANCE PARTY - A PARTY FOR THE REST OF US

-- Mike Power

Odds & Ends

Stuff noted this week.

Not feeling the love:  Dean Heller's lukewarm support of Trump cost him the election - says Trump.

 Nice short video from the Nevada Independent explaining water rights in the state.

 
 On why it's so difficult for third parties in the US and why it isn't so hard elsewhere.

 Democrats have a real reason to worry about Howard Schultz (& in Nevada).

 And the 2020 race is on in Nevada - at least for the Democrats - with visits by Kamala Harris and Ohio's Sherrod Brown in the next couple of weeks.

State of the American Dream

If there is one thing Americans generally hold in common it is a belief in fairness.  To be specific - fairness of opportunity, not outcome.  Lincoln spoke of it in the context of "the race of life". Everyone should have a shot at making the best of themselves using their natural talents and  opportunities.

So how fair is America?   Are there any objective measures that can help answer this question?  I'd like to suggest there might be two:

Income & wealth distribution.

   

The Gini Coefficient is an economic indicator of how wealth is distributed.  In a country where everyone had the same income, the Gini Coefficient would be zero; in one where one person had all the cash, the Gini Coefficient would be 1.   Where does America stand and where is it heading?  Here's the data since World War II (Wikipedia):

America leads the pack in terms of income disparity in developed countries.  Here's a more detailed view of just America.  The 1991 bump is an artifact but the trend is clearly up.

  The upward trend since the 1980's indicates the wealthiest are capturing an increasingly larger share of the pie.   This has been exacerbated by the Great Recession (Congressional Budget Office).

The net result is that the middle class has been shrinking since the 1960's with a recent pause during the recovery from the Great Recession. 

The bottom line is income and wealth inequality is growing in America.   Perhaps this inequality could be discounted as evidence of unfairness if  the poorest Americans still had the essentials of life and everyone had fair shot of making it to the top.  But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore...

Social mobility

Part of the American Dream is to be able to hope your children will be better off than you were.  In economic jargon this is "intergenerational mobility".  If you are able to improve your lot significantly in your lifetime, this is "intragenerational mobility".  How are we doing? Relative to other developed countries, there's less social mobility in America in absolute numbers.  Intergenerational elasticity is a fancy way of saying you'll stay pretty much where you started.

So globally we're right behind class-ridden Britain in terms of social mobility.  The good news however is that while social mobility isn't high in America, the differences in social mobility between the rich and the poor were narrowing and it was starting to look like at least there was nearly an equal chance for the rich to become poor as the poor to become rich....

Unfortunately, since 2010, this trend seems to have stalled.  Here's a recent map of intragenerational mobility in the US (NY Times):

In large population centers on the east and west coasts and much of the Deep South, it's getting tougher to move up from the bottom to a higher rung on the economic ladder.

Putting it all together...

When you have a look at both income / wealth inequality and social mobility, you get the following picture of where America stands in the world:

We accept a higher level of wealth inequality and social immobility than most other developed countries, sustained by the American Dream that we can individually beat the odds.   It's becoming clear to many Americans that this isn't working.

So - what to do?  Both parties are attacking inequality:

• The Democrats are going after the wealthy.  Led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, they're proposing 70% to 90% income taxes and steep wealth transfer taxes.  While the objective is to reduce inequality, past experience with very high tax rates suggests that the wealthy will be able to evade them and this will have marginal effect.

• The Republicans are working the bottom end of the income distribution.  By reducing red-tape, encouraging the return of American industry and implementing tariffs, the Trump administration is attempting to improve the fortunes of lower middle class Americans employed in natural resource, agriculture or manufacturing. 

Neither party is really dealing with the issue of declining social mobility.  Each is hostage to oligarchical special interest groups who have a vested interest in keeping themselves where they are and others in their place beneath them. 

Dealing with social mobility issues would involve tackling things like:

• Taxing capital gains like income.
• Cutting down monopolies and ensuring real competition in all industries.
• Ensuring adequate public school education for all, regardless of where you live.
• Reducing or removing occupational licensing designed to keep people from entering many occupations.
• Ensuring everyone has access to decent, affordable health care - especially young children.
• Re-writing building codes and zoning regulations.
• Providing mass transit and repairing crumbling infrastructure.
• Reducing red-tape created by special interests to restrict competition.

If you can't move up the economic ladder and see no way for your kids to do better than you did, the American Dream is dead.   There are signs of this across the country in boarded up factories, abandoned farms, declining communities, broken families and lives lost to drugs & despair.
 
There isn't much talk about fairness in our current political climate but it's at the heart of what America is all about.  Maybe it's time it became an issue.

-- Mike Power

THE ALLIANCE PARTY - A FAIR DEAL FOR ALL AMERICANS 

Another hat in the ring?

Sounds like Starbucks founder Howard Schultz is seriously contemplating running for president as an independent.  Although he has never held public office, he obviously doesn't consider that a detriment.  With a personal fortune estimated at north of $3 billion, he has the key requirement to make a run:cash!

His background and achievements are also assets.  He grew up in Brooklyn in a poor family, well acquainted with the precarious situation many average Americans find themselves in today.  While no big (in fact enormous) company can escape controversy, Starbucks is a popular employer which has made a notable effort  to help  employees interested in furthering their educations,  and has programs to help veterans and legal refugees seeking employment.

It's hard to say exactly where he is politically.  He supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election but is very concerned about the national debt, while giving the current administration some credit for improving the economy.  There is "draft Howard Schultz" PAC (ReadyForSchultz) already up and running and it seems certain that the guy who built Starbucks from scratch could certainly put together a national political campaign a-la Ross Perot if he chooses.

This appears to be most threatening to the Democrats as noted by commentators at The Atlantic and CNN.  So far, crickets from the Republicans. 

When a man like Howard Schultz is prepared to take a run at the presidency, he obviously senses both a need and an opportunity.  With the Democrats tacking hard left and the Republicans in lockstep with the President but unsure of where they're going, the average moderate American has no political home.  Howard Schultz senses that need and the sheer size of this constituency.  The problem is, without a party, he has no hope of delivering the change he feels Americans want.

Politics is a team sport and no one - regardless of their exceptional achievements and capabilities - is capable of fixing our nations problems on their own.   True progress will only be made when Americans join together seeking common ground at the state and local level to thrash out issues and find home-grown candidates - not self-selected superstars.   The two major parties are in the thrall of oligarchs and special interest groups.   Only a home grown, grass roots movement has a chance of  breaking the deadlock and building a really new third party in America.

The Alliance Party -  built from the ground up.     

-- Mike Power

Government shutdown: Month two

You know how this might end don't you?  It's just a matter of time before there's some incident - terror attack, plane crash, bad batch of romaine lettuce and all of a sudden there's going to be one quick rush to reopen the Federal Government and point fingers.  If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.  

Both major parties agree - in principal - that border security is an issue.   Both the Democrats and the Republicans want a DACA deal on the dreamers.  So what's do difficult about this?  Get in a room, hammer out a deal and both sides can get something and declare victory.  Negotiating 101 - what you learned in play school not business school.    

In the meantime, 800,000 Federal workers are without pay.  The lucky ones on furlough can at least look for some kind of paying work in the interim.   The rest aren't even that lucky; they're on payday loans at 24% if they can get them.

 

If there ever was an argument for ditching both parties and getting out of this game of prisoner's dilemma - this is it. 

THE ALLIANCE PARTY - WE WON'T SHUT YOU DOWN.

-- Mike Power