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!

MAGA Billionaires Plan War on Social Security & Medicare Benefits

If you didn’t believe it before, you should listen carefully now that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been charged with cutting waste from federal spending. The large part of the federal dollars that are spent on Social Security and Medicare are definitely in their crosshairs.

And Senator Rick Scott, who recently lost his quest to become the Senate Majority Leader, is right there with them. Scott, who is estimated to have a net worth close to $300 million and is considered the richest senator, earned much of his fortune in healthcare. His company was subsequently charged with 14 felonies for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and paid over a billion dollars in fines.

As a senator, he formed a PAC to reduce costs. Some of its policies can be found here. They would deconstruct the government as we know it and are close to many proposals in the 2025 plan. He wanted Congress to receive an annual report on the sustainability of Medicare. Then, by claiming it could not be sustained, would he have moved to diminish current benefits?

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Medicare is the second largest expenditure in the Federal budget, with expenditures of 839 million dollars in 2023. Medicare covers seniors over 65, and some others, for hospital costs, medical, and ancillary care, and prescription drug costs. This number represents 14% of federal spending and covered 89 million people, or 20% of the population in that year. Financing comes through an income-based payroll tax, fees, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. and from the general fund. A reluctance to increase the salary cap contribution levels has contributed to a projected Medicare fund deficit. The large cohort of “baby boomers” just now hitting the system will strain total expenditures and will drive calls for reducing costs.

Of course, the primary expense in the federal system is for Social Security benefits. In 2024, as reported by the SSA, almost 68 million Americans received a monthly check from Social Security. This cost was estimated to be 1.5 trillion dollars for this year. In 2023, that expense was 21% of the federal budget. Although often referred to as an entitlement, these funds are pulled from earnings, invested, and returned to workers upon retirement. To be eligible for the benefit, a worker must have paid into the system for 40 quarters, or at least ten years, over their working life. To combat inflation, a cost of living (COLA) expense is factored into the allotments each year and is based on average costs. For the upcoming year, the average increase will be about $50 monthly.

For most beneficiaries, (9 of 10 eligibles over 65) Social Security was the major source of their annual income. The average monthly benefit is around $1900.00 or about $23,000 annually. Payments are calculated from the total earnings attributed to each retiree during their years of employment. (Additional payments are made to disabled workers and surviving children of deceased contributors.)

One fact that seems to have escaped our billionaires mentioned above is that each worker contributes to this fund through taxes withdrawn from their periodic paychecks. Employers contribute matching funds for each worker. Those who are self-employed pay double the amount annually. This is not a free giveaway; workers earn these payments through their years of work. The funds are sent to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Trust funds.  As of the end of 2023, those funds were worth $2.8 Trillion. But these funds are expected to run out in another decade or so as those paying into the system are not sustaining the costs of the increasing numbers drawing benefits from it. That number and the longer life spans for retirees are making the future less secure for retirees.

As an example, when Social Security first started paying benefits in 1940, the average life expectancy was 61 years. Benefits did not start until age 62. By 2023, that number increased to an average of approximately 79 years. (Since women traditionally live longer than men, that number is slightly higher for them; although recent stats show that men are decreasing in life expectancy to 73 years, a major decline.) So the system needs definitely to undergo review. Many think, that in ten years monthly checks must decrease to avoid insolvency. Another option is to increase the salary cap floor, as earnings are currently only calculated from the first $168,000 of income. That number will increase slightly in 2025 to $176,000.

That said, the current weekly salary for American workers reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the third quarter of this year, averaged, is $1,165.00 for men, and slightly less for women at $1054.00. The numbers for minorities were even lower. These numbers translate into annual median wages of approximately $60,000 a year. There were also regional differences as the minimum wage level varies across the country. If an average salary is queried, that would be about $68,000.

These are the facts. This is the reality that most Americans live with. I started working at age 14 as a page in my local library. I stopped working in my seventies, with times out only for advanced education, childbirth, and subsequent care.

These maga millionaires claiming to be able to find trillions to cut from Federal spending have no understanding of the system or its promise to workers, judging from some of their recent statements.

From reporting by The Hill

“The pair, who were named co-chairs of the panel last week, laid out their plans for the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 

“The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and cost savings,” they wrote. “We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws.” :

 

As reported by MSN

“In an interview with American computer scientist and podcaster, Lex Fridman, Ramaswamy said, “In there on Day 1, anybody in the federal bureaucracy who's not elected, whose social security number ends in an odd number, you're out, if it ends in an even number, you are in. There’s a 50 percent cut right there. Of those who remain, if your social security number starts in an even number, you're in, and if it starts with an odd number, you're out. That's a 75 percent reduction."

(Vivek may not realize that the first three numbers of an SSN referred to the area of the country where the initial application was made until 2011; it is now a random number, so it might have a disproportionate impact on the more populous areas of the country. He also may not understand that, since Civil Service applications give a weighted preference in hiring to veterans, they also would be severely impacted if his ideas were adopted.)

The New York Times noted in an opinion column by Peter Coy:

“I doubt if a C.E.O. or anyone outside of government has the attention span or the interest to truly go into the weeds,” Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told me. Riedl worked for six years as chief economist to former Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio.

Dan Lips, the head of policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, who was a Senate Republican staffer from 2011 to 2019, told me that “having very animated, high-profile leaders looking at these issues with a fresh perspective will be helpful.” But Lips recommended that rather than start from scratch, Musk, and Ramaswamy should draw on the detailed work on improving efficiency that has already been done, including by the Government Accountability Office, the inspectors general in each department and various congressional committees.

The Government Accountability Office in particular already does a lot of what Musk and Ramaswamy have in mind, except with the advantage of deep institutional knowledge. By its own accounting, it has produced benefits of $123 for every dollar put into it over the past six years on average.

Musk and Ramaswamy have lost some credibility with potential allies by lobbying for ideas that are clearly impossible, such as ditching three-quarters of the federal workforce or, as Musk has floated, cutting $2 trillion out of the federal government’s nearly $7 trillion budget. (That would be more than everything the government spends on stuff other than defense, interest and transfer payments such as Medicare and Social Security.)

Fed.pay.org  reports that there are approximately 1,402,000 people employed by the Federal government across 365 agencies. The average salary is around $80,000, and benefits add more. The costs are about $112.61 billion annually. So, if these geniuses cut this number of employees in half, what might this loss of jobs do to the economy? What would happen to the Social Security Trust fund if it lost 50% of the expected federal worker contributions it now receives? Where would alternative employment appear?

So, hang onto your hats folks, the weather ahead promises to be stormy! When these yokels get started you have to know that Medicare is also definitely in their sights. And, in this, they will have help from the kooky anti-vaxxer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, if he gets confirmed, and the weird Dr. Mehmet Oz of supplement and crudities fame. Oz admits to being worth between 100-400 million dollars. What could possibly go wrong? That is a topic for another week.

Well, at least Matt Gaetz is out of the picture as he read the writing on the wall from Republicans that he could not get enough votes. This was compounded by leaks from testimony given and findings about the thousands of dollars he spent on “pay for sex” transactions. Stay tuned as Cabinet positions are more likely to be drawn from Central Casting, the pages of Variety, the entertainment publication, or Fox TV personalities, than from experienced academics or accomplished business professionals. Instead of the ‘best and the brightest’, we are presented with some of the ‘worst and the weirdest’ nominees this time!

And. DJT, who still has not signed the transition agreement, is raising private funds (from undisclosed donors, just what is he promising them?) to pay for the transition and does not want his nominees to be vetted by the FBI. What else is he hiding? Have the missing funds from his inauguration ever been accounted for? I hope that President Biden would order the FBI to do these background checks anyway, in the interests of national security or something.

Finally, as tallies continue, it is obvious that he does not have a mandate as his share of the popular vote has fallen to under 50% and Harris edges closer to within 1.5% of his total. Contrary to his campaign claims, this election was not a landslide. Popular vote vs. the Electoral College remains a debate for another day.

Still disavowing the 2025 report, DJT continues to lie, even as he adds its authors to his administration.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving! It seems that the turkeys here are not just found at the dinner tables.

Til next week-Peace!

A Cabinet of Deplorables?

The president-elect told everyone that he would exact revenge and retribution against those who tried to thwart him during his previous term in office. Many thought this was just idle chatter. They are being proven wrong. Although some of the announced choices for posts in the new administration are accomplished professionals, many are not. Some of these choices are people who have voiced opposition to the policies of the departments they are poised to lead. Others are not remotely qualified and may have been chosen to be the undoing of their selected department.

He tried to do an end run around the required practice of “Senatorial Advise and Consent”, common to all Cabinet and other senior position nominations, by suggesting that the Senate recess after his Inauguration, so he could initiate appointments without hearings. He even tried to push forward his choice for the position of Senate Majority Leader, Senator Rick Scott of Florida. The Senate, voting by secret ballot, selected Senator John Thune of South Dakota instead. Thune was the choice of the outgoing leader, Mitch McConnell. So, at least at first, the Senate noted it was not a lapdog. Time shall tell how far this goes as DJT appreciates neither disobedience nor disloyalty. The recess appointments would allow his nominees to avoid those pesky FBI background checks that previously found unsavory tidbits and subsequently derailed candidates for matters such as hiring undocumented workers, drunk driving records, and extra-marital affairs. He appears to have forgotten, or perhaps ignored, the Constitutional principle of separation of powers whereby the entities of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive authorities are each separate and equal bodies not subjugated to any other. He previously disdained the concept of the Rule of Law; I expect, sadly, this will continue.

A few of the early nominees are noted below.

Senator Marco Rubio, the senior senator from Florida, is the nominee for Secretary of State and is a knowledgeable politician with expertise in foreign affairs. In 2016, Rubio ran for president in the Republican primaries against DJT. He has been active in foreign relations and concerns about South America and Taiwan. He is a first-generation American with parents who emigrated from Cuba. Rubio and his wife live in Miami and have four children. His net worth is around $500,000. This announcement received positive responses from legislators.

The budget for State, which includes US AID, is around 85 billion.

Governor Doug Burgham, from North Dakota, has been in office since 2016 and is a billionaire. He ran for president in the 2024 Republican primaries. His wealth comes from success in software, real estate, and venture capitalist businesses. In 2001, he sold his software company to Microsoft for a billion dollars. He has been nominated for the position of Secretary of the Interior. The Department of the Interior monitors many western lands through its oversight of Indian Affairs, the vast western ranges of public lands, and many areas of natural resources. DJT wanted public lands opened for drilling and decreased tribal boundaries and some land protection. These were later restored by President Biden. Burgham is married to his second wife and has two children. Governor Burgham is said to be a supporter of carbon capture and fracking and is opposed to abortion rights. This department’s annual allocation is around 92 billion dollars.

Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, perhaps best known for bragging about shooting her disobedient dog at a gravel pit, was once considered for the role of Vice-President on the Republican ticket. A former Congressional representative, she was elected governor in 2019. She is a farmer and rancher and lives on her family farm. She and her husband have been married for over thirty years and have three children. Their net worth is estimated to be around three million. Even though her state is not a border state, Noem sent National Guard forces to the southern border and claimed that Mexican cartels were colluding with South Dakota tribal populations. (She was then banned from tribal lands by Native American leaders who considered her remarks outrageous. Reservations comprise about ten percent of her state.) Although she has no experience in public safety or security, other than as a governor, she was nominated for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security.

This department addresses issues such as immigration, Artificial Intelligence, customs, anti-terrorism, and disaster relief and has a budget of over 50 billion dollars.

A Fox weekend TV announcer and National Guard military veteran, Pete Hegseth was the nominee for Defense Secretary. Although he had twenty years of military experience in the Guard, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, he frequently criticized decisions by military officials from his Fox position. Hegseth wrote a book about the military but has no corporation or administrative experience. Between his book sales and TV work, he is estimated to have a worth of about six million. He called the January 6^th insurrectionists patriots and advocated for pardons for others convicted of war crimes while enlisted. Known for disparaging the role of women and minorities in the services, he reportedly said women do not belong in combat units with men. He voluntarily left the service after unit members questioned some tattoos he brandished that some considered associated with white extremist groups. He has been married three times and has seven children. (And this does not include any details about the NDA a woman who accused him of rape, signed after an alleged pay-off.)

The Pentagon budget covers each Armed Service division plus has funds for use with international assistance. It awards contracts as needed to support logistics. The Defense budget for 2024 is $841 billion or 12.5% of the US budget.

Now we come to a position promised to RFK Jr. for his endorsement during the campaign. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was selected for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy is known for his anti-vax campaigns, his opposition to Covid care, and the CDC. A lawyer, he won significant protections for many riverways. He is a supporter of conspiracy theories, especially relating to autism, (many of which have been disproven), and opposes many food and drug government regulations. He supports the use of raw milk, which can expose consumers to cowpox, and, possibly, bird flu. Kennedy opposes the use of fluoride in the water supply. Known for his work on environmental issues, he more recently became an advocate against the use of food and drug additives in the American diet. And encourages healthy diets to reduce what he called the “chronic disease epidemic.” He promises to deter the NIH's focus on viruses. RFK Jr. also has alleged sex scandals in his background, said he never claimed to be an altar boy, and admitted to significant drug use in college and beyond. He is married to his third wife and has six children. They are estimated by Forbes to have a net worth of about 15 million.

This Department covers Federal Health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, CHIP, the CDC, NIH, public health, Indian healthcare, people with disabilities, and addiction services. The HHS budget for 2024 was 144.3 billion in discretionary spending and over a trillion in mandatory spending.

So where do we go from here? These are only a few of the selections so far. I plan to go further next time, but there is so much happening. Writing in The Unpopulist, Robert Tracinski states that this is a cabinet of nihilists who will be loyal to DJT, not their jobs.

He states that “each appointment is a deliberate negation, even a mockery of the function of the government he or she will be in charge of.” He adds these individuals are not merely unqualified, they are disqualified. They are anti-qualified – the antithesis of each office…

‘Tracinski compares Trump to the emperor Caligula, who famously showed his contempt for the Roman Senate, and for any nominal checks on his own power, by proposing to appoint his favorite horse, Incitatus, as a consul.’

Authoritarians do not want to strengthen government, they want to weaken it, according to Bill Kristol who wrote in the Bulwark. By reducing rules and procedures, there are fewer roadblocks toward their exercise of capricious power.

“After all, if Trump isn’t checked now, what are the prospects of checking him later, when he will have succeeded in this first effort at intimidation, and when he will have all the key powers of the executive branch at his disposal?

As the political scientist Jeffrey Tulis recently pointed out, the “process of normalization” of Trump and his authoritarian spirit is very far along. That normalization over the past few years is in fact what made possible his recent electoral victory.

But to yield now to these appointments would be a normalization not just of Trump as a wannabe authoritarian but as actual, governing authoritarian.”

The Washington Post recently reported:

“There’s always been this issue about Trump. Should he be taken seriously but not literally, literally but not seriously, or both literally and seriously? At this point, after the campaign he waged, after sweeping all seven battleground states and winning the popular vote, it seems that taking him literally and seriously is the right way to view what’s happened to date.

Trump appears intent on making good on what he pledged as a candidate. He is going after what he calls “the deep state,” the vast federal bureaucracy that he saw as resisting his wishes during his first term. He is determined to have his way with the Pentagon brass, after several generals who served in his first administration turned on him. And he appears ready to go after those in the legal system who he feels went after him. Trump demands loyalty and in his early appointments is rewarding loyalty. That makes this coming administration far different from his first one.

Trump won the election on a promise again to try to shake up the status quo. Many voters bought it. The president-elect is gambling that those who voted for him were prepared for the amount of disruption that his early nominations suggest is coming.”

So what comes next? The New York Times reports on recent Democratic efforts.

“The Democratic effort will rely on the work of hundreds of lawyers, who are being recruited to combat Trump administration policies on a range of Democratic priorities. Already, advocacy groups have begun workshopping cases and recruiting potential plaintiffs to challenge expected regulations, laws and administrative actions starting on Day 1.

Democracy Forward, a legal group that formed after Mr. Trump won in 2016, has built a multimillion-dollar war chest and marshaled more than 800 lawyers to press a full-throated legal response across a wide range of issues.

Democrats have a growing belief that their efforts must extend beyond the political sphere, trying to go on offense in a splintered media environment where conservatives have amassed more influence. One new liberal dark-money group began prospecting for donors with a pitch that it would unearth unflattering revelations about the Murdoch family and Elon Musk — both pro-Trump media magnates.

The group, called the Two Plus Two Coalition, plans to “target the hidden sources of disinformation and expose them for what they are,” according to a donor prospectus being circulated this past week. The group asked donors for a minimum investment of $1 million, and was aiming for an annual budget of $10 million to $15 million.”

Time will tell. The circus is just beginning. We shall see if the clowns or a Ringmaster is in charge.

Til next week-Peace.