The Great American Treasury Heist

Starring Elon Musk and his teener minions

Featuring the Oligarchs Chorus with a

Cameo appearance by their favorite puppet – Mr Maga himself!

 Did you vote for Elon Musk – I know I didn’t!

The president’s Executive Orders and Elon Musk’s actions this week have caused chaos and confusion across the country as agencies were shuttered, employees were told to quit their civil service jobs, and electronic funds for states were suddenly frozen. Agency Inspector Generals, in positions created by Congress, were summarily fired even though this was against the law.  Presidents can fire for cause but must defend that cause and give Congress a thirty-day notice.

This past weekend, Musk, and his minions (with no security clearances or background checks) bullied their way into the Treasury Department finance payment system. The new Secretary of the Treasury, whom I thought was one of the saner choices, did not stop them. Now, according to reports, they have access to financial data on every person or company that received government dollars.  This means your student loan, small business funding, aid to dependant children, everyone’s social security check, tax return, and all veterans benefits, plus much more. Heather Cox Richardson on Substack reports that the young workers hired by Musk are rewriting code, making restoration of the original data difficult, if not impossible. They are also using Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs to scour the systems and help create new systems that only they will have access to. Targeting particular words, for example, they could identify all DEI programs or food stamp payments.

So, we have an unelected person with access to all our data, and making changes without authorization, what could go wrong? And a president, known to not have any computer or cybersecurity savvy, (bought and paid for by Musk’s 288 million dollars) is in no position to stop anything even if he wanted to.

Apparently, Musk thinks he can reduce the federal workforce by replacing humans with AI programs. Additionally, since he considers himself so intelligent, with his arrogance, he is less likely to accept criticism or alternative suggestions. And, after firing all the Inspector Generals, who would be able to even look and find errors or corruption? These young people, some still in their teens, have taken no oaths to support our constitution, their loyalty is to Musk. None of the people involved in these efforts seem to care that much of what they are doing is illegal, could be fraudulent, and is invading the privacy of millions. Security experts worry that foreign enemies and hackers are just waiting to break into these systems that have now had their guardrails removed. What international brokers are salivating for a data breach??

Attorney and Professor Joyce Vance called these actions a coup, not a violent one such as the attempt on January 6^th, but a coup without bloodshed. Does that make it less dangerous? Certainly not!

Vance quotes historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat “a new kind of coup,” writing in Lucid about Elon Musk’s seeming power-sharing with Trump: “And here is where the U.S. 2025 situation starts to look different. The point of personalist rule is to reinforce the strongman. There is only room for one authoritarian leader at the top of the power vertical. Here there are two.”

Push-back is starting. Several judges have placed some of these edicts on hold,.The Birthright Citizenship do-over will probably not go through. But, while Unions, IGs, and FBI agents, among others, are all turning to the Courts, Musk,and his minions are clicking away doing who knows what without any oversight. Are you okay with that? There have been demonstrations in downtown DC this week outside USAID and Treasury. Thousands of people showed up on Tuesday, so we’ll see what happens next. Several Democratic officials tried to enter these buildings but were turned away.

Many social scientists report that this flurry of activity is designed to distract from the real aim here, to neuter Congress, disdain the populace, ignore the courts, (except when they would do their bidding,) and install a government with few regulations that serves the concerns of the wealthiest among us. The Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law, and the Constitutional basis for our Democracy will be in tatters if they succeed,

Meanwhile, the Republican Senators continue to process the worst nominees in a century for cabinet positions. Threatened with primary opposition if they speak out, the Senators meekly put their re-election chances above their duties to the American people. Not one Republican stood up against this assault on our democratic process or any of the actions described here. And Project 2025, which the president claimed to know nothing about, showed us the blueprint for what is happening now. Russell Vought, one of the authors and the nominee for the Office of Management and the Budget is getting ready to complete his takedown of our government as we know it. Do Google this and read the 700-plus pages of the 2025 Plan if you have not yet done so, Apparently many Maga voters either never read this, think it is fine, or believed the campaign when it said it knew nothing about it. Liars!

Our Diversity is Our Strength

Let’s take a look at the social costs of some of these changes:

Most of you understand I spent most of my career in healthcare. I have worked with nurses, physicians, and researchers from across the globe. With my diverse set of co-workers, I have cared for people who came from every walk of life, ethnicities other than mine, and in varied states of health and wealth. We tried to look at the illness or condition regardless of how the patient came to us. The child in a red state with a fracture received the same treatment as the one in a blue state. The undocumented farm worker with an infection needed antibiotics as critically as an office worker in a C suite.

Healthcare inequities exist and will continue until we view health as a human right. When I began my career as a nurse there was no Medicare or Medicaid coverage: once a person retired and lost their employer-based coverage, there were few affordable options. Some pensions and unions had benefits, but not most people.  This is not the subject here. However, part of the problem being overlooked is that without a strong workforce, our tax dollars can no longer support Medicare and Medicaid. Putting millions out of government jobs will not immediately transfer them into similar careers in the private sector. Are you ready for your grandparents to live in the “poor house”

What I want everyone to understand is that we already have a diverse country and that some, who grew up in a mostly white America, do not want that to change. (That was why the Maga campaign looked back to the 50s as the ideal period in America.) We’re not going back there. Look around, and see the people of color, brown, black, Asian, and Indian. They are here and their numbers are increasing, so let’s celebrate and learn from each other. Whether we accept this change or not, statisticians predict we will be a majority-minority country within decades.

The President described Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts as damaging to the country and ordered the firing of all government officials working to implement such policies. This is so anti-American. Equity means that applicants have a fair chance to get a job. Inclusion means that people with disabilities, such as veterans who have lost a limb, can still be employed by civil service. A neighbor, who had limited vision and used a white cane, took local transit to his downtown federal job. Would you deny him this opportunity to be self-sufficient? Civil Rights protections in place for decades were rolled back without reason. Will we head back to the era of ‘’last hired first fired’ for the Black members of our society now?

The president tried to marginalize the trans community with new Executive Orders. Many pundits on the right act as if this is a huge problem when in actuality, trans people are a very small minority, according to the US Census this is 1.14 % of our population or about 3 million residents in a country of 330+ million. The president declared that there can only be two genders – male and female as born. Executive Orders prohibited any surgical interventions for those under 19 and banned trans females from participating in female sports teams. Incarcerated trans people, who identified as female, were ordered to be housed in male-only units which is cruel as it would leave them vulnerable to threats and assaults.

Estimates tally the trans population in the military forces as approximately 15,000. The new defense secretary ordered all trans members to leave the military, but did not set a timetable. How does that affect our military readiness? Trans people were willing to put on a uniform, serve, and possibly die for their country. (That is certainly more than our new president, with his multiple draft deferments, was willing to do.) And, as a matter of pique, most likely at the request of the president, Hegspeth removed the portraits of General Milley from the walls of the Pentagon and disbanded his security protection.

(General Milley served for more than 40 years and had four stars along with multiple commendations. He retired from his position as Defense Secretary but, after leaving the service, was critical of the president. Some in Congress have threatened to remove one of his stars–which would decrease his retirement pay-and prosecute him for treason; the president wanted him hanged. President Biden protectively pardoned him from any prosecutions.)

Women have made gigantic gains since the 1960s, but still have difficulty being employed and accepted in several fields, even when their education and experience made them highly qualified. Although the years of service by women in the military were denigrated in his books by the defense secretary; he says his opinions have changed. We shall see. The issue of sexual assault against women in the military persists, although structural changes have been put in place. The president inferred that diversity or gender might have been responsible for the crash in DC last week of a Black Hawk Army helicopter and an American Airlines plane. His remarks were insensitive and wrong. Sadly, 67 people lost their lives. The captain and first officer on the plane were white men; The military pilot and co-pilot on the helicopter were both white; one was a woman.

Several million people work for the Federal government. More than half are in civilian jobs that support military missions. So, threatening these jobs could also reduce military readiness. But, as of now, it seems, most federal employees have been sent home from their offices, lost access to their emails or other communication, and are locked out of their computers. They were told to quit or risk being fired. Niceties such as Civil Service protections were discounted. Those who did quit were told they could receive 6 months' pay, even though there is no budgeted item to support this outlay.

There appears to be no concern that these moves are messing with people’s lives and endangering their personal information. Federal employees can be Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. But all want to educate their children, have a decent living standard,  or perhaps travel or plan for retirement. These recent moves put these expectations in jeopardy for millions .

So what are you going to do to stop this? Do you remember that movie where the TV guy said “I’m mad as H…and I’m not going to take this anymore?” Well, folks, it’s time! Call the Congress, Senators, and Reps. Let them know how you feel. If the number won’t go thru, call the District office. Call the White House. Go to meetings, go to their offices. Tell them enough is enough! It has only been two weeks! The raiding of our kinda disorderly, somewhat overweight, government must stop. There are better ways to fix it.

Til next time, peace!

Fires, Lies, & Poetry

 

As I write this sitting in the MD DC suburbs, it is snowing heavily. This is about the third snow since the new year started. In the last few years, we have seen little snow, and the winters have been warmer. This fact led many to talk about global climate change, while others point to days like today and say that all is normal. Well, the point of change is that it is variable and we often see the extremes at either end of the weather forecasts.

The fires in the Los Angeles area show another aspect of variable weather. For many months during the year, Southern California enjoys mild temperatures and sunny days with little rain. Then, as autumn turns into winter, cyclical rains are expected. In recent years, there has been so much rain that flooding and landslides have occurred. Last year saw record temperatures across much of the western part of the country. States from Arizona to Oregon experienced weeks with thermostats recording temperatures over 100 degrees.

Los Angeles was no exception. And, as temperatures rise, vegetation dries up and dies, thus providing fuel for any wayward spark. This year saw little rain; less than an inch has fallen. Not to overuse a phrase, a perfect storm was in the wings, just waiting for the return of the Santa Ana Winds. If you can think of these winds as a hurricane without the rains, you can get the picture. In a hurricane, the winds are unrelenting and often appear in bands, feeding upon what came before; these winds are little different. They came from the east, barreling over the mountains that rim the area with great fury, toppling trees and power lines. Perhaps a fallen line ignited a fire, perhaps a spark from a backyard barbeque? We don’t yet know. But fire begets fire when there are acres of dry tinder ahead. And winds drive embers to land on roofs, backyard fences, and treehouses. Soon entire neighborhoods are engulfed.

Fire doesn’t care whether the home is one perched high above the ocean with a beautiful view, a multimillion-dollar mansion owned by a movie star, or is in a valley, a modest cottage built by its owner. Both went up in flames. To me, it was astounding to see how fast the fires moved and how quickly homes were destroyed. And, it was also surprising to note that certain blocks remained with houses on one side seemingly untouched, while across the street lay destruction. Fire is contrary and fickle, it seems.

As reported by The New York Times:

“Fire scientists say they hope the fires will be a catalyst for major change, with new requirements for retrofitting older houses, prohibiting rebuilding in burned areas or encouraging people and developers to leave areas that are deemed high-risk. “We have to recognize that the failure in urban planning happened 50 or 80 years ago when we were first laying out the communities on the fringes of L.A.,” said Michael J. Gollner, an associate professor, and director of the fire research laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. “We know how to make the destruction dramatically less.”

“But the overhaul required to fireproof communities comes with enormous costs, either for retrofitting or rebuilding fire-vulnerable homes or for land newly deemed too risky to build on — a particularly difficult prospect in a state with a severe housing crisis. These changes also might mean a painful shift in identity for Californians, as preventing wildfires could require constructing homes without vegetation nearby, far from the wilderness that many hold dear.”

As the Washington Post reported:

“The Eaton Fire has left Altadena in ruins — a scene that Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger described as a “war zone.”

Entire blocks now lie in ashes, homes erased as if they never stood. The fire’s chaotic winds carried embers for miles, igniting destruction in unpredictable bursts and leaving pockets of survival amid overwhelming loss, Barger said.

The destruction is especially acute around Eaton Canyon: “I was absolutely shocked. There’s not even a word for the destruction that it caused in that area,” she said.”

 

I was saddened to see so much criticism of the firefighting when there was little water pressure, or dry hydrants as neighborhoods burned down. Think for a minute, we’ve seen firefighters battling wildfires, clearing brush, chopping trees in the path, and setting up breaks so the fire will no longer have fuel as it progresses over a ridge, for example. Then they call in the planes to drop retardant and stop the forward progress. This is repeated again and again as they gain control of the blaze. Fighting in an urban development is so very different.

But, then turn to your neighborhood. Maybe a home was on fire, so what did you see? Several engine companies and many firefighters putting out a fire at a single dwelling. Or maybe there was a row of townhouses where multiple companies were called in to save the buildings. Consider the efforts you saw then. How could that intense battle for one or a few homes compare with fire entering an entire city, one where every house on the block was endangered and sending embers to houses on the next block? That becomes a conflagration. There is no brush to cut down, no way to build a break or a berm to slow the fire. And the hurricane-force winds keep the planes out of the air. And, as multiple companies tap into the same water supply, the pressure drops and the waters run out. In some cases, loss of power caused the pumps to fail.

Who is to blame? It, to me, is beyond belief that outsiders thought that pointing fingers was a way to address this problem. Yes, there were lives lost and thousands of properties and homes destroyed. Even so, many people were safely evacuated, and many homes were spared. But how would you have stopped the fires? I would rather applaud those who worked and are still working to contain these horrific fires and look to the future for different solutions.

This is a fire update from the Washington Post as of 1/17/25.

But, complaining is one thing, outright lying by some should not be tolerated.

The BBC Verify addressed many of these claims and counterclaims, in this article.

Complaints were posted online calling out the LA Fire Chief, who is a career firefighter with many years of service, but is also a gay woman. They implied she was a Diversity hire or DEI, and they said “DEI” means DIE. The president-elect kept talking about turning on the water from Northern California and shunting it to Los Angeles. That is not the problem as noted by the Times.

“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snowmelt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Mr. Trump said.

The governor’s press office responded with a statement on social media.  There is no such document as the water restoration declaration — that is pure fiction,” the statement on X said. “The Governor is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need.”

The Republican Congress recently implied that California would have to meet certain unspecified requirements before disaster relief would be granted. Was the same requirement made before the recent hurricane damage in the red states of Florida, North Carolina, or Georgia?

As reported by MSN:

“For months leading up to the election, Trump, and Republicans railed against the leaders of Democratic cities and states, including Newsom, painting California as a bastion of liberal policies and politicians who were unequipped to solve problems such as crime, illegal immigration, and homelessness. …. But none of those officials faced anything like the vitriolic, partisan, and online-dominated political environment that will complicate the Los Angeles recovery….

A version of that criticism has persisted during the fires, as Republicans, some Democrats, and many voters have questioned whether state and city officials did everything they could to prepare for and fight fires that have claimed the lives of more than 20 people and whose economic losses could total between $50 billion and $150 billion, according to analysts.

Former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown said Newsom is facing an enormously complicated set of governing challenges in overseeing the damage assessment, executing the recovery, disposing of toxic materials, and “staying on point and engaging the federal government to the maximum degree.”

Newsom has rebutted criticisms of the state’s preparedness by emphasizing that state funding for Cal Fire has nearly doubled during his time in office from $2 billion to $3.8 billion; the number of state fire personnel has also grown, from 5,829 to more than 10,741. The Democratic governor has also highlighted the decisions that he made with state and local emergency officials to pre-position 110 fire engines, as well as specialized crews, water tenders, and other equipment in six Southern California counties several days before the fires.”

Other reporting noted:

“Three main water tanks near the Palisades, each holding about 1 million gallons, were filled in preparation for the fire because of dangerous weather. The tanks were all depleted by 3 a.m. Wednesday, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power CEO and Chief Engineer Janisse Quiñones said during a news conference Wednesday. Although water continued to flow to the affected areas, demand for it rose faster than the system could deliver it.

"There’s water in the trunk line; it just cannot get up the hill, because we cannot fill the tanks fast enough," Quiñones said. "And we cannot lower the amount of water that we provide to the Fire Department in order to supply the tanks, because we’re balancing firefighting with water."

A reservoir near the Pacific Palisades that is part of the city’s water supply was closed for repairs when the fires broke out, and it might have eased the water pressure issues had it been operable, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

Other social media users claimed slow construction of California’s reservoir led to the hydrants running dry. But, local infrastructure failures, not regional water storage, caused the hydrant problems, so it’s wrong to blame them on these projects’ construction timeline.”

Can’t we all work for the restoration of the lives and livelihoods destroyed by these fires? Shouldn’t we be helping those who lost loved ones mourn and recover?

As Americans usually do when faced with disasters, let’s not blame the victims, but work for their healing.

I’ll close with some poetry from poet Amanda Gorman who lives in the Pacific Palisades. These are the last few lines of her poem.

"Today, we mourn. Tomorrow, reborn. We end the burning, befriend the hurting, mend those who face the flame. We reclaim our city's name, a revelation that only this place tells. To find our angels, all we need do is look within ourselves."

Til next time-Peace!

January 6 and us

"We cannot and must not pretend that Donald Trump did not inspire an insurrection. We should not forget that despite being reelected in 2024, he tried to steal the 2020 election.

January 6 should be the day we recommit to democracy, every single year. It must not become the day we forget about it." Joyce Vance

Americans sometimes have short memories. That is why this comment is so important. In a few days, a new president will be sworn into office at the same Capitol his followers tried to destroy. Those who died that day, as a result, are still dead; their families still mourn. The police officers and others injured then still bear the scars and wounds as reminders. Some were unable to return to duty and have lost their livelihood.. They and their loved ones will have no problems remembering.

The Congress is expected to certify the election of 2024 tomorrow, assuming the expected snowstorm does not shut the city down. There is no insurrection expected this time; opinions still differ about expectations in 2021. Vice President Kamala Harris will do the same job that many tried to prevent former VP Mike Pence from doing. She will certify the results of the election she tried so hard to win for her opponent. That is the American way, the peaceful transfer of power.

The MAGA candidate promised ,while on the campaign trail, that there would be violence should he lose. So, since he won, this January sixth, we will not be subjected to marauders armed with bear spray, stun guns, spears, and other weapons. People will not be stalking the corridors looking for Nancy Pelosi or shouting Hang Mike Pence. Criminals will not steal from Congressional offices, while staff in other rooms barricade doors in fear of their lives. Invaders will not break historic statues, defecate nearby and desecrate our county's history.

Should this be our only expectation? That we do not expect our fellow Americans to behave like Neanderthals?

Let's build a contrast here from recent news. 

Former President Jimmy Carter passed away at the age of 100.

In a few days, the body of former President Carter will lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda, that privileged space for honors. People may pay their respects until his funeral later in the week. His fellow Georgians are taking time to do that at the Carter Center now. This past week, tales of Carters presidency and post-presidency are widespread. Though not considered a forceful president while in office, he has had an eventful post presidency that included winning a Nobel Prize.

Former President Barack Obama eulogized him, in part, with these words:

" ... his accomplishments...the Camp David Accords he brokered that reshaped the Middle East; the work he did to diversify the federal judiciary, including nominating a pioneering women’s rights activist and lawyer named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the federal bench; the environmental reforms he put in place, becoming one of the first leaders in the world to recognize the problem of climate change.

Others were likely there because of what President Carter accomplished in the longest, and most impactful, post-presidency in American history – monitoring more than 100 elections around the world; helping virtually eliminate Guinea worm disease, an infection that had haunted Africa for centuries; becoming the only former president to earn a Nobel Peace Prize; and building or repairing thousands of homes in more than a dozen countries with his beloved Rosalynn as part of Habitat for Humanity.

But I’m willing to bet that many people in that church on Sunday morning were there, at least in part, because of something more fundamental: President Carter’s decency.

Elected in the shadow of Watergate, Jimmy Carter promised voters that he would always tell the truth. And he did – advocating for the public good, consequences be damned. He believed some things were more important than reelection – things like integrity, respect, and compassion. Because Jimmy Carter believed, as deeply as he believed anything, that we are all created in God’s image."

 

The president-elect complained that at his inauguration the flags will still fly at half mast because of the official 30-day period of mourning established in Carters' honor by President Biden. This is a traditional ceremony for deceased presidents.

 

He also complained about the awarding of a Presidential Citizens Award to Liz Cheney for her role on The January 6th Committee (Chair Bennie Thompson also received a medal.) Cheney responded by saying:

"Donald, this is not the Soviet Union," Cheney wrote.: "You can't change the truth and you cannot silence us. Remember all your lies about the voting machines, the election workers, your countless allegations of fraud that never happened? Many of your lawyers have been sanctioned, disciplined or disbarred, the courts ruled against you, and dozens of your own White House, administration, and campaign aides testified against you."

Remember how you sent a mob to our Capitol and then watched the violence on television and refused for hours to instruct the mob to leave?" she continued. "Remember how your former Vice President prevented you from overturning our Republic? We remember."

Cheney then urged Americans to oppose Trump during his second administration to protect "our Constitutional Republic."

"And now, as you take office again, the American people need to reject your latest malicious falsehoods and stand as the guardrails of our Constitutional Republic — to protect the America we love from you," she wrote.

Now, as we enter this momentous week and a New Year, I can only echo the words above. It I up to us to keep memories alive, be vigilant, speak up and speak out as necessary. Talk back about Republican claims of a landslide or a mandate- there was neither of these in one of the closest presidential elections in history and one in which neither candidate topped 50% of the total vote.

So, Til next week-Peace!

Healthcare Vigilantism

 

 

Do you have healthcare insurance coverage? According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, most Americans (92%) have some form of coverage. This number accounts for approximately 305 million people. However, that leaves 8% or over 25 million without insurance. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) allowed many more to get access to healthcare by removing the pre-existing restriction clauses and by adding young people to their parents' insurance. Still, the costs for individual coverage remain out of reach for many. The Supreme Court decision to remove the mandate for coverage weakened the original plans to average costs across many generations. High deductibles, common to many marketplace plans, made access more difficult for some families.

Still, most people say they are satisfied with their employer-based healthcare. Some plans covered mandated minimums but little more, while others have expanded their services. Many of the problems and complaints come from issues of access. Patients must go to a provider in their plan, or have to pay more or have services denied. At other times, the insurer requires a second opinion or offers few specialty choices. If a denial is appealed, a subsequent decision may be delayed. These are the concerns that lead many to speak out about the lack of care provided by their plan.

When a person is in pain, or ill, the last thing they want to do is argue with their insurance about covered services. Yet too often, this is the case, and care delayed can be the difference in life or death in cases such as rapidly expanding malignancies, for example.

I worked for many years in the healthcare industry and have seen these issues from multiple sides, Facilities, Providers, Patients, and Insurers. I have audited medical records from doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes. I know that most try to provide good care but are sometimes constrained by external forces. Although there is some fraud in the industry, most claims are legitimate and should be paid as they are submitted. Managed care organizations (MCO’s) in my opinion, to save money for their stockholders, brought in the bean counters to measure every aspect of the patient encounter. For example, some physicians were told they could only address a single complaint in a visit and not answer extraneous questions. However, when one is a senior citizen, such as I am, often multiple conditions are interrelated and must be addressed. Medical visits should not be like checkouts in the grocery store.

Looking back to my childhood, I see a different medical picture. Then doctors and others had fewer tools in their treatment tool box, but still made house calls when it was necessary. The doctor knew the family and could make a social assessment if necessary. They knew to ask questions about food security, domestic violence, and loss of jobs. Today, it is difficult to build up trust and have a relationship with a provider one sees twice a year for 12 minutes.

This leads me to the recent issue of vigilantism. The Internet exploded with people applauding the random killing of a healthcare executive. This man was a father, a husband, and a respected person in his profession. Just because he worked in healthcare for a major company, should his killing be justified? What does that make of us as a society? No matter how disliked his employer is, nothing justifies his cold-blooded killing.

The basic facts, as most people already know, the CEO of United Health Care, Brian Thompson, was murdered on a New York City sidewalk. After an intense search for the suspect, the police released a photo that was widely displayed. Although he was masked, surveillance cameras captured enough of an image that led to the arrest of a suspect in Altoona PA.

There, patrons of a McDonald’s saw a resemblance with a young customer and called local police, who arrested a young man after verifying his identity.

Authorities described finding a written manifesto in his backpack that indicated his issues with medical care he received before and after back surgery. It included references to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. This reference was also taken up by the sudden followers this had on the Internet. Memories are short, Kaczynski was not a hero, he was a person with grudges and grievances who deliberately wounded several persons and killed others with his package bombs. Over a period of almost twenty years, he targeted people whom he believed were harming the environment or promoting increased uses for technology.

Novelist Maxim Loscutoff wrote a novel about the Unabomber and the American West called Old King. When speaking to a high school class about this novel, he learned many of them considered the Unabomber a hero. In a column for the New York Times, he describes:

“To many young people living in a system of extreme economic disparity, in a world they believe is on the verge of ecological collapse, the Unabomber represents a dark, growing ideological desperation. To them, his ruthlessly intellectualized turn to violence can seem justified.

But what is lost in this lionization of one of the most notorious terrorists in American history is that for Mr. Kaczynski, the desire to kill came first, and the ideological justifications followed. Lonely rage defined him, and he spent far more time tormenting his neighbors than he did on his grandiose plans to bring down industrial society.”

“Watching video of Mr. Mangione’s detention, and listening to the words he shouted to the media, I felt a profound sadness. I saw a young man with a promising start in life lost in naïve convictions, and poisoned by his newly formed and corrupt ideology.

Violent men have always gained followers, but Mr. Kaczynski’s continued influence is mostly intellectual. He had a showman’s instinct for manipulating the crowd, and intuited that the advance of technology and collapse of the environment would be the two dominant crises of the 21st century. He callously identified the environmental movement as being the most socially acceptable justification for his crimes, even though he privately denigrated environmentalists in his journals, and proudly littered, poached and illegally logged on national forest land around his cabin.

Decades later, the health insurance industry is now a catalyst for rage in contemporary society — denying people medical care, denying doctors payment and bankrupting patients while making hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. Its avarice affects people of all stripes, and the disturbingly widespread support for Mr. Thompson’s killing online is evidence of the boiling river of resentment running beneath our streets.

Plenty of young people are alienated from both sides of the political spectrum, and trying to create their own patchwork philosophies. They’ve seen little meaningful reform from either political party in their lifetime, get their information from a wide range of sources of varying reliability and take pride in forming their own opinions.”

This explanation does not excuse the actions of this young man who allegedly killed someone he did not know and had had no contact with. There is no history of him ever having been a client of United Health Care. He grew up, a young man of privilege with a recognized intellect, and graduated from prestigious universities. How did he choose this path? We may never really know as he now seems alienated from most of society.

The American Psychological Association describes the emotions that lead to such actions briefly.

Why some people resort to vigilantism—to the admiration of many

The psychology behind vigilantism is complex, involving individual traits, societal influences, emotion, and reasoning

“At the contextual level, their research shows vigilantes often see their environments as filled with violations of norms and rules, and they lack faith in authorities to address these issues effectively. This perception motivates them to seek out and punish “perpetrators” outside of the formal justice system. “Vigilantes are not purely motivated by sadism,” Chen said. “To their perception, they are doing this for public good or to help other people.”

Feeling good about bad acts

Supporters of vigilantes share the belief that the justice system fails to punish perceived wrongdoing. Isabel Pinto, PhD, director of the Social Psychology Lab at the University of Porto, conducted research showing that when people perceive formal institutions of social control, such as the justice system, as ineffective, they are more likely to support harsh and informal measures to punish those they see as offenders (Pinto, I., et al., Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2024).”

The Washington Post wrote an editorial about this incident that said in part:
“Those who excuse or celebrate Mr. Thompson’s killing reveal an ends-justify-the-means sentiment that is flatly inconsistent with stable democracy. An all-things-are-warranted mindset also animated the mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and campus protesters who have hailed the “martyrs” of Hamas — groups very different in their degrees of moral transgression and practical impact, but similar in their embrace of extreme measures to right perceived wrongs. To repeat: Most Americans probably reject this kind of thinking. But social media makes what would have previously been ignorable fringe expressions more prominent.

Some who do not countenance the killing itself have nevertheless tried to treat it as an occasion for policy debate about claim denial rates by health insurance companies, an admittedly legitimate issue. That’s fine in principle, but we’re skeptical that this particular moment lends itself to nuanced discussion of a complicated, and heavily regulated, industry.

Controlling health-care costs requires difficult trade-offs, the essential one being between access and cost. Insurers, whose profits are capped by federal law, must contend with consumer demand for ready access to high-priced specialists and prescription drugs — and, at the same time, premiums low enough that people can afford coverage. Many dislike the way the nation’s private-sector-led insurance system manages the trade-offs. But even the most generous state-run health systems in other countries also have to face them. Certain forms of care are delayed, or not even offered, to conserve finite resources for the treatments that are believed to deliver the most value for money

Americans’ best response is to support leaders and legislation that improve health-care outcomes by restraining premiums, cutting unnecessary costs and investing in care that works. A debate on one small piece of this complex set of issues will occur next year, when Congress is to consider whether to keep temporary Obamacare enhancements that have boosted enrollment.”

So, in conclusion, no one seems to have the answers to our health industry costs/care dilemma, but maybe discussions are getting started. But, whether we solve this issue now or later, we need to start. We also need to speak out strongly against violence as a solution to this and other societal concerns.

Before I close, I send best wishes to all as we enter the holiday season and look forward to the New Year.

Til next time-Peace!

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Gone?

 

Guess who the dynamic duo, i.e. Vivek and Elon, might go after next? Of course, it could be our citizen advocate, CFPB, known as The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

As reported recently on MSNBC by Helaine Olen (and truncated below:

“The Silicon Valley Bros are not fans of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Elon Musk would like you to know that he believes the bureau is an unnecessary bureaucratic hiccup and one that should not exist. “Delete CFPB,” he posted on X last week, adding it’s “duplicative,” a perfect target, he seemed to indicate, for his DOGE commission to improve government efficiency. Musk’s comment was in response to, yes, another post, this one detailing claims about the agency made by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast. Andreessen claimed the CFPB is the personal fiefdom of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and that it pursues political and business vendettas against Republicans and small, scrappy fintech startups on behalf of Democrats and the big banks.

None of this is true. The amount of bad faith and seemingly deliberate duplicity on display here — by Musk, Andreessen, and many who support them online — is staggering. The CFPB aims to protect the American people from vested financial interests big and small, ranging from too-big-to-fail banks to fly-by-night payday loan lenders to Silicon Valley fintech startups. Almost all these interests hate it, not because the agency is “duplicative,” but precisely because it is not “

Over its almost 13 years, the agency has stopped numerous financial ripoffs and returned billions of dollars to the public. Its mere existence provides an ongoing demonstration of how the government can effectively stand up to big money interests and protect the American people. Fittingly, Musk — and other Silicon Valley titans — want it to go away.

On Rogan’s program, Andreessen claimed the CFPB orders “debanking” — that is, forced shutting down of bank accounts and other financial tools — for those it believes have “the wrong politics.” But debanking is, for the most part, not a CFPB issue — and where it is, the CFPB is doing the exact opposite of what Andreessen claimed. In August, the CFPB filed a brief in a legal case arguing that debanking of religious conservatives is a form of discrimination. At a panel earlier this year, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra argued that this amounts to payment services’ “setting laws or conditions outside of the democratic process.” On Tuesday, the CFPB followed this up by making it clear a proposed new rule would, if finalized, stop the sale by data brokers of personal info to scammers, and could also combat debanking that occurs because of identity theft or other fraud.

However, the CFPB has a lot to do with regulating the fintech space, which is something that Andreessen, Musk, and the rest of Silicon Valley are very interested in.  Let’s start with what Andreessen did not disclose to Rogan’s audience. In 2021, the CFPB shut down a fintech named LendUp Loans after the agency flagged and fined it multiple times for offenses including lying to customers and tricking them into taking on high-interest loans. Earlier this year, the bureau announced it would distribute nearly $40 million to “118,101 consumers who were deceived by LendUp Loans.” It was a humiliating end for a firm whose backers, according to The Wall Street Journal, included “some of the biggest names in venture capital, including ... Andreessen Horowitz.” Yes, that Andreessen.

More broadly, under Chopra, the CFPB has moved in on the Wild West environment of digital payment and wallet apps, including not just Venmo and PayPal but also Google and Apple. It has subjected them to federal oversight and issued regulations governing their behavior regarding fraud — not dissimilar to how traditional banks are treated.

Silicon Valley, unsurprisingly, is no more happy to subject itself to rules than Wall Street is. In particular, Musk — who has made it no secret that he would like X to branch into digital financial services — has a long track record of attempting to bend the government to his will and flouting its authority when he cannot.

The CFPB, born out of the financial crisis, stands in the way of all that. Little wonder Musk and company think it needs to go.”

How did we get to this point regarding an agency much respected by the general public?

After years of battles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) opened its doors in 2011. Elizabeth Warren, then a professor at Harvard, previously led a committee on financial oversight as requested by Congress. Her findings suggested better transparency in all lending practices, a reduction of legalese in documents, and a simple explanation of costs with no hidden fees. Created by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Financial Law to restructure some lending practices that many thought contributed to an unstable economy. Loans were made, then bought and sold to conglomerates, no longer based in a local community and with little interest in small or local markets. The stated goals were, as described by Warren:

1.    To ensure consumers have enough timely information to make responsible financial decisions

2.    To protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or discriminatory practices

3.    To reduce unnecessary or burdensome regulations

4.    To increase fair competition and enforce federal law consistency by equal law enforcement and

5.    To advance a market that is transparent and efficient and promotes access and innovation 

But, almost before the new bureau could set up its files, Republicans, lenders, and others in the financial industries set out to undermine the authority it was granted. Professor Arthur E Wilmarth Jr. described the issue in 2012 in a George Washington University Law publication titled:

The Financial Services Industry’s Misguided Quest to Undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

He concluded:

“The financial crisis has shown convincingly that a systematic failure to protect consumers will eventually threaten the stability of our financial system as well as our general economy. Congress should therefore preserve CFPB’s existing authority and autonomy despite the determined attacks of the financial services industry and its Republican allies.”

You might have forgotten just how fraught the situation was in 2008 before President Obama took office. Banks were failing, buyers were defaulting on their loans, Lehman Brothers could not find a backer and folded, world markets were skittish, and the auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Treasury did not want to move boldly, Congress did not want to bail out anyone, and there was a presidential campaign underway. Widespread defaults caused losses even for those with sensible mortgages because their neighborhoods were devalued by the empty homes nearby.

So, once the Bureau got started, it had to set priorities. One of the first issues they worked out for consumers was in the mortgage industry, where predatory lenders convinced homeowners to buy mortgages they could not afford, and should not have qualified for. Coupled with high interest rates and saddled with homes that, because of the housing market downturn during the Great Recession, were under water (no longer worth what they cost), many buyers simply walked away from their homes.

Many companies, when scrutinized, could not stay in business. The CFPB worked with the industry to root out the rotten apples, consolidated services in larger companies and began a massive consumer education program to increase financial literacy. It also addressed many of the excesses and unfair practices in the banking industry. Wells Fargo was a good example of these practices in 2015. In a statement, the CFPB discussed the issue.

“Today we fined Wells Fargo Bank $100 million for widespread unlawful sales practices. The Bank’s employees secretly opened accounts and shifted funds from consumers’ existing accounts into these new accounts without their knowledge or permission to do so, often racking up fees or other charges.

"Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses. Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences."

Bank employees temporarily funded newly-opened accounts by transferring funds from consumers’ existing accounts in order to obtain financial compensation for meeting sales targets. These illegal sales practices date back at least five years and include using consumer names and personal information to create hundreds of thousands of unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts.

The law prohibits these types of unfair and abusive practices.

Violations covered in today’s CFPB order include:

• Opening deposit accounts and transferring funds without authorization, sometimes resulting in insufficient funds fees.
• Applying for credit card accounts without consumers’ knowledge or consent, leading to annual fees, as well as associated finance or interest charges and other late fees for some consumers.
• Issuing and activating debit cards, going so far as to create PINs, without consent.
• Creating phony email addresses to enroll consumers in online-banking services.

 

Certainly, if this happened in my bank account, I would agree that the punishment should be severe. If the CFPB were not in place as a watchdog with enforcement actions, other banks could also exercise unseen powers that harm the consumer. And, this is just one industry. Other enforcement actions were taken against junk fees, credit card fees, and overdraft practices, as well as the payday loan industry.

According to the agency website, as of 2023, over 17 billion dollars has been returned to consumers in the first ten years.

$17.5 billion–The amount of money the CFPB has put back in Americans’ pockets in the form of monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debts, and other consumer relief resulting from CFPB enforcement and supervision work

$4 billion–the amount of money CFPB has imposed in civil money penalties on companies and individuals that violate the law. This money is deposited into the victims relief fund which provides compensation to people who have been harmed by violations of federal consumer financial protection law

200 million–The estimated number of consumer accounts eligible to receive financial relief from the CFPB’s enforcement and supervision work

$175 million–The amount of monetary relief resulting from 39 public enforcement actions that involved harm to service members and veterans

50.1 million –The number of users who have accessed answers to hundreds of common financial questions via the CFPB’s Ask CFPB database

4 million–The number of consumer complaints the CFPB has sent to companies for response on behalf of consumers. Our public Consumer Complaint Database has published over 3.8 million of those

3,000–The average number of complaints the CFPB handles each day

180–The number of languages that consumers can use to file a complaint

This, certainly, is an agency that should stay in business. Call your representatives now.

As of tonight, there is a lot of turmoil in the world outside our borders. Remarks by the president-elect do not seem to be a stabilizing factor. And Tulsi Gabbard’s friendship with Syria’s Assad is again called into question. Assad fled to Russia as cities fell in his country to an armed insurgency.

Til next week-Peace!