The Electoral College Needs to Go

Background:

I originally wrote this to address PragerU video claiming the Electoral College is essential. I'm not going to post a link to the video, it's propaganda and half-truths and isn't actually relevant other than it was what prompted me to finally write this down. The video is partially correct about the reasons the founders created the EC, but it doesn’t cover all the reasons, nor why none of them apply today, and can never apply in today’s society. It’s also grossly incorrect about how it would work under a popular vote. That's all I'll say about the video, everything below stands on it's own. If you're interested if watching it, it's on YouTube and published in 2014/2015.

History of the Electoral College:

First you have to consider the historical contexts. The public was not well educated. Many couldn’t read or write. There was no national media, no TV, radio, nor even telegraph. News and information travelled relatively slowly. There was no rapid transit, no planes, trains, etc. so candidates had no easy or quick way to reach the voters of every state to get their message out to voters and become well known. Most voters would be familiar only with candidates from their own state, and maybe neighboring states.

Therefore, the EC was created to address these concerns as follows (these are the explicitly stated reasons the founders actually discussed):

1. To take the vote for President and VP out of the hands of relatively uninformed voters and give it to men presumed to be more familiar with political issues and the candidates, including candidates from all other states.
2. To prevent an unqualified populist from ever holding the reigns of the most powerful office in the country.
3. To remove the inherent advantage a candidate from a more populous state from having an overwhelming advantage solely due to name recognition.

Why the EC Isn't Useful Today:

We have universal public education, virtually everyone can read and write, and virtually all have access to nationwide news and information.

Changes in transportation and media technology have made the first and third irrelevant. Any candidate can get their message out via national media, the Internet, radio, TV, newspapers, etc. candidates can travel to all states quickly to speak directly to the voters in those states. The only states harder to physically reach are AK and HI.

The 2020 campaign season demonstrates that even physical travel to those locations is unnecessary now. It is still preferable, but clearly not necessary to reach voters.

Now let's address item #2 from above...2016 demonstrated that due to partisan influence in state laws on selection of electors, the EC is no longer capable of fulfilling its purpose of preventing an unqualified populist from reaching the office, and in fact, it’s the EC that put him there, not the popular vote. He lost the popular vote twice (as of Aug 2024) and looks like he's headed for a third loss in the popular vote in 2024.

Conclusions:

The EC is no longer useful for ANY of its intended purposes. Moreover, it greatly disenfranchises voters in populous states in their vote for the one official elected to represent ALL of the US. Everyone has an approximately equal vote in in electing their House Representative, and the a House represents the people. I’ll skip the Senate in this discussion because they were never supposed to directly represent the people, but the interests of the sovereign states (the state governments). The one person (two counting the VP) whose job it is to represent the best interests of all he people and all the states isn’t elected equally by the people, nor by “more qualified electors” directly representing the people in a state, but by partisans chosen by the parties.

BTW, the founders really disliked political parties and wanted to avoid partisan politics and would be appalled by the EC and the power of the parties today.

The EC is an anachronism that no longer serves any of the purposes it was designed for. It should be eliminated, or radically redesigned to address the concerns of partisan politics, equal representation, and preventing unqualified people from ever becoming President.

Final notes:

1. The oft repeated claim that under a popular vote candidates would just focus on large cities is nonsense that is stuck inside the all/nothing paradigm of the state electors. In a popular vote, every single vote counts equally. Candidates now spend most of their time in the “battleground states” and largely ignore the voters in other states, that’s a result of the EC that would disappear in a popular vote.

In a popular vote, candidates would campaign anywhere they believe they can pick up more votes. 500 votes in rural Kansas are just as valuable as 500 votes in NYC. Don’t take my word for it, look at election of Senators and how they run heir campaigns. A candidate must appeal to voters everywhere to win. Look at the fact that only 5x in US history has the EC vote been other than the winner of the popular vote.

2. You can accomplish materially the same things without eliminating the EC, but by restructuring it to be proportional allocation of electors based on the popular vote in each state. But as that would need to apply to all states, it would require a Constitutional Amendment or you are at the whim of any state legislature to change their allocation at any time (before the election, any change made after the election would be almost certainly considered invalid by Congress in counting the votes of the electors). Imagine a partisan state legislature changing their elector allocation during the campaign season as it becomes clear who is more likely to win overall in their state.

A proposal for reducing mass shootings in the USA.

Background, scope, and context:

We have a violence problem in the USA, and one of the ways that shows up is mass shootings. For purposes of this proposal, I'm referring to incidents where 8 or more people are shot and many of those are killed, and it's not related to gang/drug activity, or family/domestic violence. This is not an attempt to address those other incidents, even though those kill far more people every year. This is to address the large mass shootings such as Columbine HS, Aurora Theater, MSD HS in Parkland, the Newtown/Sandy Hook ES shooting, the Las Vegas concert shooting, etc.

Why am I addressing only these? Because they have a much larger psychological impact on the country, and because they can be addressed much more easily than those other incidents. These are acts of domestic terrorism, specifically stochastic terrorism. These have different causes and different solutions than the gang/drug or family/domestic dispute violence. Addressing those other issues is a much more complex problem involving many aspects of our society, laws, culture, and safety net. I may attempt to address some of those issues in another post, but I'm not going to even attempt them here.

Below is my proposal for limiting access to guns based on their capacity for "mass lethality". No, this won’t stop all such incidents, but it will make them much less likely and will tend to lower the count of injuries and deaths in each incident.

While I'm going to refer to AR-15 type guns because of their familiarity, nothing in the proposal is based specifically on any specific gun, style, or cosmetic features. This is based solely upon capacities, functionality, and maximum round energy. Indeed, this proposal doesn't even need to distinguish between handguns, shotguns, rifles, nor type of action (semi-automatic, bolt-action, etc), nor is it limited to guns using gunpowder, any means of propelling a "bullet"/"projectile" at sufficient energy will qualify.

Note that this proposal does not ban the possession, sale, or manufacturer of any type of gun or ammo currently legal in the US, but it does place some restraints on unlicensed possession of certain guns and upon the transfer of such guns, by proposing they be allowed under a new type of license that is less costly than the existing FFL (federal firearms license) required for possession of fully-automatic guns under the NFA (National Firearms Act), and requiring registration of all covered guns.

Premise: Mass Lethality

The lethality of a given gun is based mostly upon it's range, accuracy, and energy of the fired projectile(s). Now, notice that both range and accuracy are related to the energy of the projectile, higher energy cartridge allows for greater range and accuracy. Those aren't the only factors, rifling, length of barrel, length to caliber ratio of the round, mass of the round, etc all have an effect on range and accuracy. But even mass and caliber factors are significantly affected by the energy of the round. Lower energy with a given mass means lower range and accuracy, likewise, larger caliber means more drag and thus lower range and accuracy at a given energy. In short, energy of the round is the most significant element in determining range, accuracy, penetration, and lethality of a projectile.

Now, consider "mass lethality", that is the speed and ease with with a gun can be used to kill or disable a larger number of people in a given time frame. This is obviously related to it's lethality as above, including it's range, penetration, and accuracy, but also to the sustained rate of fire. Obviously, fully-automatic guns will have the highest rate of sustained fire, but those are already tightly controlled and difficult to obtain, for this very reason.

Guns such as the AR-15, which was in fact designed to be a military assault rifle (but due to political influences was rejected until Colt purchased it from Armalite, made minor changes, then marketed it as the M16 to the military, and then removed the full-auto and burst modes to market it as a civilian semi-automatic). As such, it bears nearly the same mass lethality capacity as its selective-fire siblings. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in many mass shootings, some using stock AR-15 type guns, others using modified versions with "bump stocks" or similar devices to increase the rate or fire to approximately the same as it's fully-automatic siblings, as well as in demonstrations showing how quickly it can be manually fired and how quickly magazines can be changed out. Ergo, it is the combination of larger capacity magazines, higher energy rounds, and rapid cycle times that determine the "mass lethality" of a gun. Similar guns from many manufacturers are now easily available to almost any US citican.

Guns with such "mass lethality" are inherently "weapons of war" and serve no need in hunting or self-defense (see notes at the bottom). Therefore, it is prudent to significantly restrict the possession of such weapons by civilians except when they are engaged in military training maneuvers or deployed in military battle zones.

Terminology

Now, for some concrete definitions.

1. Gun shall mean any device capable of firing one or more projectiles from a "barrel", propelled by "gun powder", "expanding gasses", electricity, or any other "explosive propellant", and said projectile is not self-propelled (e.g. rocket, missile, etc)
2. Magazine shall mean any internal or external means of storing more than one round of ammunition such that it can be moved into a firing position and fired by the gun. This specifically excludes ammo storage containers unless said there is a means other than a specific manual action by the person operating the gun to load additional rounds from that container into a firing position (e.g. belt-fed, chain-fed, or clip-fed rounds fed into the gun). This is the traditional meaning of magazine, just clarifying points so there is no possibility of a "work-around". If it can feed additional rounds into a firing position, it shall meet this definition of magazine. Note that the "cylinder" of a "revolver", or ever a gun with multiple barrels that can each hold one or more rounds will qualify as a "magazine" under this definition.
3. High-capacity magazine shall mean any INTERNAL or EXTERNAL magazine with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds/cartiridges. 10 rounds is not "high-capacity", 11 is.
4. High-energy round shall mean any projectile intended to be fired from a gun, that has a maximum energy capacity of the cartridge in excess of 800joules. For reference, this allows virtually all common "handgun" rounds except those larger than .45 caliber, and some "Magnum" rounds. Nearly all hunting guns (rifles and shotguns), except those using the .22LR or .22Magnum, exceed that energy, however, those guns rarely have magazines exceeding a 10 round capacity. [note: the figures I based this on are likely “muzzle energy”, not cartridge energy. Either measure could be used, but the energy limit might be higher when measuring maximum cartridge energy. Requires a bit more research to determine the appropriate measure/limit]. Note this refers to the maximum energy cartridge the gun is capable of firing, not the energy of any specific ammo the person possesses.
5. If a gun is capable of firing a high-energy round AND the person possessing the gun is concurrently in possession of a compatible "high-capacity magazine", functional or not, whether or not the magazine is installed in the gun, then it shall be deemed a "weapon of mass lethality" and shall be restricted under this law.
6. Possession shall mean having access to, or control of, such a gun. A gun secured in such a way that you don't have access to fire it is not considered “in your possession” under this proposal, unless you are carrying it.

The proposal:

1. any gun capable of firing a "high-energy" round, and containing an internal "high capacity" magazine, or capable of utilizing an external magazine, MUST be resistered with the state in which the owner resides. This applies regardless of whether the owner possesses any "high-capacity" magazines. If the owner does not possess any compatible high capabity magacines, then only registration is required, no license is needed. However, you MUST obtain a license before you can possess a compatible high-capacity magazine. This also means any transfer (sale, gift, etc) of such a gun to a new owner will require re-registering the gun. If the owner moves to a new state, it must be registered with the new state within 30 days of move.
2. Congress shall create a new type of firearms license allowing possession of these "weapons of mass lethality", criteria and costs for which are TBD, and shall be less costly and shall not require all of the qualifications needed for the existing FFL. It shall not allow a person to possessess any of the weapons that currently require an FFL. Criteria for receiving the license shall include passing a written test indicating they understand the terms of this law, have passed a background check (depth TBD), have completed an authorized gun safety course, have passed an authorized firearms proficiency test on a range,, and have passed a phycological examination.
3. Any gun meeting the criteria above, shall be illegal to possess unless the person possessing it has a valid license for such type of gun or is under the direct supervision of someone with such license, AND has properly registered ownership of the gun or has written, signed, dated, time-limited [to less than 14 days] permission from the properly registered owner to possess it at that time. Written permission from the owner is not required if the person is under the direct supervision the properly licensed and registered owner of the gun. Possession without specified permission from the registered owner shall be a US federal misdemeanor (class TBD) or a felony if the owner says the posessor was not authorized to possess it. Possession without a valid license shall be a class D/E felony, for a first offense. Subsequent offenses should remove all rights to possess any gun.

Notice that all of this is strictly based on measurable capabilities and capacities of the weapon, no judgement calls, nothing cosmetic, and penalties apply based on unlicensed or unregistered possession, not sale, transfer, or manufacture, so there is no "work-around" for it. It either meets the criteria and requires licensing and/or registration, or it doesn’t meet the criteria, and therefore doesn't require any additional licensing or registration, much like the existing NFA laws.

This has virtually no impact on any existing handgun, rifle, or shotgun, except for a few handguns that use high-powered (typically “magnum”) rounds AND hold more than 10 rounds, and the AR-15/AK47 like guns. It doesn't ban any gun, but it does make unlicensed or unregistered possession of specific categories of guns illegal.

In order to avoid being ex-post facto or violating the takings clause, the FedGov shall offer to purchase at market value (established shortly before the legislation is passed, or as soon as possible afterward) any gun or magazine that would become illegal to possess without a license or registration under this law, for a period of 1 year prior to the effective date of this law. Thus, current owners will have numerous options to become compliant before the effective date. Owners will be able to use any one or more of the following options to become compliant with the law:

• Get a license for such type of gun, and register any covered guns. Licenses will include thorough background checks, and are not guaranteed to be issued to any individual who applies. Those who already own a covered gun and magazine who apply during the year prior to the effective date of the law shall have their application fee waived, as will registration fees for currently owned covered guns be waived for those who receive a license.
• Sell covered guns or magazines to another person who is licensed to possess them. This includes anyone possessing the new license type or any FFL.
• Sell covered guns or magazines to the Federal Government at the pre-established prices.
• Exchange high capacity magazines, for a number of 5-10 round magazines to closely match the total capacity of each operational "high-capacity" magazine exchanged, supplied at government expense,or for one 5-10 round magazine if the high capacity magazine is non-functional.
• Destroy any covered guns or magazines, and sign an affidavit attesting to their destruction. Affidavit must include make, model, and serial number of each destroyed gun. Falsifying this affidavit (as evidenced by the later finding of any gun listed on the affidavit shall incur the same indictment and penalty as possession would have, plus an additional felony for the falsification.

It shall be illegal to give, sell, or transfer a "high-capcity" magazine to an unlicensed person. It shall be illegal for an unlicensed person to buy, receive, or build-manufacture a high-capacity magazine. The lone exception to this is that an unlicensed person may temporarily possess such high-capacity magazine while under the direct supervision of a properly licensed person.

Note that it is sufficient to simply sell/destroy/exchange all magazines for covered guns that qualify as a "high capacity" magazine to become compliant. However, later acquisition or manufacture of such a magazine would put an unlicensed/unregistered owner in violation of this law.

Notes:

Yes, the second amendment is about stopping a tyrannical government. Below are the reasons that’s not an excuse against limiting civilian assess to guns like the AR-15:

1. The states have the National Guard, official state militias to protect from the federak government. This is was not the case when the country was founded and the 2nd Amendment was written.
2. There are 80M-100M gun owners in the USA, they vastly outnumber the total number (~2M) of military and police. In the event of any attempt to attack the citizens, it’s likely at least half the police/military would refuse to follow an order to attack and would take whatever arms they could and fight against those who would follow the order. The govt would be greatly outnubered.
3. Having an AR type gun isn’t going to make any difference in such an event, not against professional military armed with tanks, RPGs, LAWS rockets, artillery, fighter jets, bombers, and nuclear weapons. It will be numbers and tactics that win against tyranny, not AR-15 like guns.
4. Likewise, for home/self-defense, an AR-15 like gun isn't going to be any more useful with or without a high-capacity magazine. Handguns and shotguns are the most useful for home/self-defense. If you need to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense, you've already lost because you were greatly outnumbered, or were not adequately proficient with your gun, and an AR-15 type gun would not likely alter the outcome.
5. Does registration allow tyrants to confiscate guns? No, for two reasons. First, this doesnt require registering all guns, only those meeting the criteria above. Your other guns aren't affected. Second, the number of guns and gun owners already in the US makes that completely unrealistic.
6. Why restrict magazine size? Yes, magazines can be changed very quickly, however, it does generally take 2-3 seconds and changes the focus of a shooter while doing so. Therefore, every time a shooter has to stop and change magazines gives defenders a chance to escape or counter-attack (whether that involves shooting back or physically assaulting the shooter).

Acknowledgements:

Inspiration for this proposal came from my reading of a proposal by a friend of mine. While my proposal is definitely different from his, it was the thing that sparked the idea in my head, so acknowledgement is due for his contribution.People B4 Guns proposal

Updates:

2022-05-31: Given that I've been advocating this proposal for several years (including about 2 years before I posted it here on my blog) as an alternative to an outright ban, but almost no gun owners have tried to get it enacted, I've concluded that too many just don't want to do anything. As such, I'm ok with turning this proposal into an outright ban on the types of weapons it would cover, either way works for me. If you're not willing to be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem and should be treated as such. If you don't like being put in that category, then do something. Take action to address the problem now. Doing nothing isn't working. "Thoughts and prayers" don't work, unless you take action. The "good guy with a gun" theory is thoroughly debunked, as 6x as many shooters are stopped by UNARMED civilians than are stopped by "good guys with guns".

2024-09-04: Minor tweaks and clarifications, corrected a few typos/spelling errors. Changed "high-capacity" magazine from more than 9 rounds to more than 10 rounds, thus reducing the number of covered magazines and simplifying the exchange of "high-capacity" magazines for lower capacity magazines.

Praying for the wrong things

While there is a slight Christian bent to this, I know that most of this applies to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Wicca, and many pagan religions.

If you’re praying for Trump (or Biden) to win the election at this point, then you’re praying for the wrong thing. Perhaps you’re confused about how prayer works. Perhaps you hope your prayers will somehow change the outcome. That’s not how prayer works.

Prayer doesn’t change what has already happened. Whether or not God can do that is a question I’ll leave to the theologians and philosophers. What I do see is that he/she won’t, at least not if there is free will. For God to undo what is already done, would be to deny the very concept of free will, and dealing with the consequences of our choices.

If you want some biblical examples, notice that Lot’s wife wasn’t brought back after being turned to a pillar of salt. Notice God didn’t stop, nor undo, the crucification of Jesus. You may believe Jesus was resurrected/risen, but notice he was not brought back in mortal human form. There are literally hundreds of examples in holy texts that God doesn’t undo what has been done. Notice that no matter how many times you have prayed for something to be undone, it has never been undone. Praying for God to undo anything already done is to live in a fantasy world.

If you’re praying for money, things, or power, you’ve completely missed the message, and you’re praying for the wrong things. If you’re praying to force others to adhere to your beliefs, you’re praying for the wrong things. If you’re praying for personal gain, you’re praying for the wrong things. Some very wise and insightful people wrote “Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV, Dialing for Dollars is trying to reach me”, sarcastically making this very point.

As Pope Francis said (translated to English) “First you pray [for guidance], then you act. That’s how prayer works.” You pray for guidance about how to deal with circumstances, then you act on that guidance to achieve the best result that is now possible.

This election is over. The votes are cast. God isn’t going to add 200,000 people in key states, create birth records and IDs or them, create voter registration records for them, create ballots that vote for the candidate you want to win, and insert them in to the uncounted ballots. God isn’t going to change the ballots between now and any recounts. That’s just not how any of this works.

Yes, there are still ballots to count and certify, there are legal challenges to be addressed, etc. There are laws and processes covering all of those, and God doesn’t interfere with the laws of man. If you’ve read your holy text, you know that. Don’t pray for God to change the outcome, to sway it in the way you want it to end, because that isn’t how it works, and you’re wasting your time and energy.

If you want to pray for Trump, then pray for God to show him the error of his ways. Pray for him to repent for his lies, cheating, adultery, and crimes. Pray for him to see the damage and harm he has caused, for him to feel empathy and compassion for others. For him to truly understand the pain and suffering he has caused, and for him to repent and change his ways. But don’t pray for him to win, that’s just not how God works, and such prayers won’t be answered, nor help anyone.

Pray that all the votes are counted, that everyone has their voice heard. Pray that the leaders we elected (whoever they are) will do whats in the best interests of ALL of the people and the country. Pray for guidance for how you can help bring about what is best or ALL the people, even if it doesn’t match your view of what that looks like. That is how prayer works. That is how God works.

Let’s Talk About Taxes, What’s Fair?

There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. For any system of taxation you can contrive, I (or another) can show how it's "unfair" to some person or group. Therefore, I never discuss taxes in the context of fair/unfair (e.g. "fair-share"). There simply is no such thing, so it's a futile discussion.

The only useful context for discussion taxation is workability. Specifically, a workable taxation system is one that provides sufficient revenue to provide the agreed upon services, while minimizing the impact/burden on each individual.

By impact/burden, I mean it the effect on the ability of the individual to live with the "socially agreed upon" minimal necessities of life IN THAT SOCIETY, AND minimizing the impact/limit on his ability to better his situation via education, work, and/or investment.

Thus, if a person makes at or less than the minimum required for necessities in a society, ANY taxes on him are a very heavy burden, even "undue" burden. For someone who makes just a small amount more than minimum, taxes are a heavy burden as they limit his ability to better his circumstances, therefore, they should be as light as feasible, but he can reasonably be expected to pay some taxes. The greater the difference between a person's income, and the minimum necessary in that society, the lesser the impact taxes will have on his ability to improve his circumstances.

This is the fundamental principle for which progressive taxation is the system with the lowest impact/burden. Now, some will try to claim it's unfair to those who earn the most, but as Ii said, "fair" isn't a useful context for discussing taxation. However, because it's very difficult for human beings to remove "fair/unfair" from their context for consideration, I will address a couple items in the context of what is fair/unfair:

1. It should never be considered "fair", or "just" to tax more than 50% of what a person earns (after deducting the minimum required to live in that society). That is, taking more than half of a person's "discretionary" or "disposable" income as taxation should be avoided unless it's simply not possible to operate an agreed upon govt using less (e.g. it might be necessary to have a higher tax during times of war or national emergency, and then must be for as short a time as practical).
2. To reduce a person's ability to afford luxuries is less of a burden than reducing his ability to improve his circumstance. Is it not more of a burden to take 10% from a person who has $1000 above the "minimum necessary", than taking 20% from a person with 100,000 above the minimum?
3. Those who earn more, do so, not solely of their own labor, but in part by the freedoms afforded by the society in which they earned it, thus those who "earn" the most, have also benefited the most from the society. Is it not appropriate that those who benefit more, pay a greater share to continue the society that enables them to earn those amounts?

It's Time to Talk About Guns.

It's time to have a frank discussion about guns and the homicide rate in the USA. First some disclaimers:

1. I don't know all the answers, I've just analyzed the statistics enough to point out the flaws with both the "pro-gun", NRA, don't regulate them, arm more people groups as well as the "ban guns", "gun control" groups. I will address both through one or more articles, so expect to have your beliefs challenged no matter where you stand on the issue.
2. I will propose some possible solutions or paths that might lead to solutions. You may or may not agree with all of them, and that's ok. Please read them anyway, perhaps they will alter your view, or perhaps they'll help you see a path/solution others haven't seen.
3. I'm going to point out trends in the US and other countries that may counter what you've heard/read. I will provide links to the source data so you can see that I'm not distorting the info.
4. Some of what I post might really upset you. Chances are that it's not what I say or how I say it that upsets you, but the fact that it disagrees with some belief or agenda you may have (and may not even be aware of). That too is ok. Push on, be willing to challenge everything you think you know about the topic.
5. I'm not going to try to convince you that guns are good or bad, that's a personal opinion, you're welcome to keep your opinions about guns. I'm dealing in facts and practical solutions to lower the US homicide rate, and "gun violence"
6. I'm a lifelong gun owner. I'm not interested in convincing you to own guns or not. You can make your own choice.
7. I've never hunted and have no desire to do so. I have never pointed a gun at any living creature, and I hope I never find myself in a situation where I find that necessary. I shoot targets, including skeet (clay pigeons).
8. If you choose to own a gun, I'm going to demand that you be responsible. If you can't or won't be, you should not be allowed to own or possess a gun.
9. I believe guns can be a part of a civilized society, and that the laws need to take every reasonable effort to keep guns away from those who are unlikely to act responsibly.
10. There are some "arms" that are weapons of war and should not be possessed by civilians. This is long established Constitutional law, we don't allow civilians to own nuclear weapons, tanks, artillery, bombs, fully-automatic guns, etc. We allow some exceptions via licensing or qualified individuals. This is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. This is established law, don't even try to argue against it, deal with reality. I will not indulge such arguments, so don't waste your time or mine trying to make one.
11. Personal attacks and uncivil comments will not be tolerated. If you make them, I'll remove them and/or ban you. Keep it civil.

Homicides are homicides:

Many sources talk about "gun homicides" as is they are somehow separate from other homicides. They aren't. Dead is dead, no matter how they were killed. People don't kill because they have a gun. People become homicidal, then they find a method of carrying out their intent. Yes, some methods have a higher lethality rate, some kill more people in less time, but there are several methods that can be just as lethal and fast as a gun. But notice it's not the gun that makes people homicidal, the gun is just a convenient and (in the US today) very accessible tool.

Suicides are not homicides:

Suicides are a tragedy, I'm not going to diminish the seriousness or loss any suicide represents. But, they are a symptom of many problems in our society, depression, hopelessness, lack of access to healthcare, poverty, etc. I don't even pretend to understand it. But I do know that suicides aren't materially lower in countries with very low access to guns, because they have nothing to do with guns. I'm not going to address suicides other than to say, they are a separate issue, require a separate set of solutions. If you try to conflate "gun suicides" into the discussion, I will remove your comments. No exceptions. Don't even ask why it's not allowed because I just explained why.

Australia and the UK:

Australia’s gun ban/buyback did not stop the problem. Every time there is s mass shooting in the US, the same set of old articles claiming it ended mass shootings and drastically lowered their homicide rate reappear. The problem is that it’s not exactly true. Note: this does not mean that sane, sensible restrictions on access guns aren’t a part of the answer, I think they are a part of the answer, but they clearly aren’t the whole answer to addressing the homicide rate.

Australian Gun Ban/Buy-back
1. Homicides actually increased for 2 years after they completed the gun buyback. Then they fell for about 10 years and have been fairly stable since.
2. The US experienced the same percentage decrease in homicides over those same years, despite the abundance of guns here and the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban in 2004.
3. Australia didn’t even see a drop in mass homicides. There were 77 people killed in mass homicides in 13 incidents in the 21 years prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. All were shootings. There have been at least 79 killed in 13 incidents in the 21 years since, about half of them by arson, 8 by stabbing, 8 using guns, others by various other means.

Massacres in Australia Crime in the US Australian Institute of Criminology

Regarding the UK handgun ban, I'm not getting into the specifics, but if you research it, you'll find the results are very similar to Australia. I'll leave that research to the reader, but I've looked into it extensively, and it's not materially different. The one thing I will address is that the UK did get their homicide rate under control...by hiring tens of thousands of additional police officers. That's what finally worked, not the handgun ban. The homicide rate actually increased about 60% over the 12 years following the handgun ban. Look it up.

Chicago and other US cities:

Chicago does not have the highest homicide rate in the US. In fact, it's not in the top 5, and it's generally not in the top 10, having only been in the top 10 two of the past 20 years. For the last 5 years, St Louis has been #1. St Louis has almost no gun laws. As of this writing, the top 5 are St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Newark (NJ). St Louis and New Orleans have very lax gun laws, Detroit has moderate laws, Chicago and Newark have strict laws. Feel free to browse the list sorted by homicide rate, that pattern continues throughout the list, with a mixture of cities having lax laws right next to cities with strict laws. There is a slight tendency for cities with the lowest homicide rates to be cities with strict gun laws, but it's not strong enough to cite as compelling evidence for strong gun laws "working".

List of US cities by crime rate

Thoughts and Prayers and doing nothing:

Thoughts and prayers won't solve this, no God works that way. If God protected the innocent, we wouldn't need to have arguments or laws about abortion, or murder, or armed guards at our schools, God would just protect them. Notice it doesn't work that way. Prayers are for guidance, then you take action. Without action, nothing happens. Send your thoughts, make your prayers, then ACT.

A Proposal:

A rational proposal, draft legislation, written by a friend of mine that is the first proposal I’ve seen that could effectively address the “military type guns” in the US. It’s not an outright ban, but it would place them under strict regulations.

It’s well written, easy to understand, specific and measurable so anyone can objectively determine if any gun falls under it or not, and addresses the functionality, not the appearance or other factors that can easily be worked around. And, it doesn’t infringe anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. It also applies to all those already in circulation and gives time for the owners to comply with the new regs.

It may need some tweaking, but it’s a very solid starting place. I've proposed some specific tweaks that clarify and simplify it by addressing the "mass lethality" of a given gun using restrictions that are based solely on the maximum cartridge energy combined with semi-automatic operation and a "magazine" capacity exceeding 9 rounds. I'll post those details as an update later.

PeopleB4Guns.org

Beware False Claims and Propaganda:

Beware the claims about the numbers of school shootings and mass shootings. There are people out there flat out lying to further their agendas. This is true for some on the pro-gun/no restrictions groups as well as the anti-gun/"ban them all" groups. Here’s one example.

1. More armed people isn’t the answer. The same data that shows “gun control” doesn’t solve the problem also show that more guns doesn’t solve it. Two sides of the same coin.

2. Sane, sensible gun restrictions, possibly including a ban of guns such as the AR-15, are a prudent step to take, but don’t be deluded into thinking they will make a big difference. They will help, but it’s likely to make only a small difference.

3. Blaming or banning inanimate objects, while sometimes prudent and somewhat helpful, does not, and never will solve problems that are caused by human behavior. Sure, we can ban the most dangerous objects, and save a few lives, but the big results only come from addressing the behavior.

4. What we need to do (other than doing the above) is stop arguing about guns and start looking at what causes the anger, hopelessness, disconnection and/or other feelings that has people do such things with such frequency in our society. It’s not strictly a “mental health” issue, it’s cultural and socioeconomic.

An editorial that covers many of the common claims.
A sane article on the issues, based on evidence, not ideology.

PACs, Parties, Corporate, and individual activities in campaigns.

Individuals, Companies, and Corporations:

No person (including corporations) other than a candidate’s official campaign organization, may pay for political advertising promoting or denouncing any candidate.

Note this does not preclude public statements endorsing or denouncing a candidate, including newspaper and TV editorials. But it must be printed/aired just one time during a campaign. “On demand” reading/viewing of the editorial is allowed, but no person other than the campaign itself is “paying” to promote or advertise said editorial/endorsement.

Political parties:

Political parties are to be funded by donations from US citizens and permanent residents who are constituents of the area represented by that party. Notice that excludes corporations and foreigners. Parties may not pay for activities that promote or oppose any specific candidate, but they may pay for advertising promoting their party “platform”, views on issues, etc. They may also pay for their national presidential nominating convention, and state parties may pay for conventions for their nomination of state governors and other statewide office holders. National parties may not fund state parties nor vice-verse, but they may help promote or hold fund-raising events for each other. This is to ensure that state parties are nearly free or outside influence from other states. Parties may of course maintain, publish, and distribute lists of their candidates and elected members.

PACs:

Political Action Committees are permitted but may only promote or oppose specific issues/laws, they may not promote or oppose any candidate or political affiliation (e.g. Political Party). They can accept donations from US corporations and any US citizen or permanent resident. This is how corporations can express their political views, by forming and/or contributing to PACs that promote or oppose issues of importance to that corporation. Note: this could include churches and other not-for-profit organizations. This prohibition includes purely “internal” communications that promote or oppose specific candidates or parties. E.g. preachers promoting a candidate from the pulpit, memos/email from corporate executives about candidates or parties, etc. PACs may have internal communications about which candidates support or oppose (including undecided or unknown) the issues the PAC supports or opposes, as such is essential to their mission, and they may publish lists of candidates CONFIRMED to PUBLICLY support or oppose each issue/law, so long as they have performed due diligence in verifying the accuracy of those lists before publishing. Candidates who haven’t publicly stated a position on the issue/law may only be listed as “position unspecified”

A Proposal For Election Campaign Finance

My previous posts on Corporations are Not People touch on the problems of unlimited campaign contributions and "dark money". In this post, I offer a specific proposal for publicly financed campaigns that limit the public liability, and give every voter the exact same power in contributing to the campaigns of their choice.

Rather that directly financing any willing candidate, or using capped partial public funding to qualified candidates, two methods that have been used or proposed elsewhere, give every active voter (those who actually voted in any election in the past 4 years) a “debit card” with an initial amount on it that they can donate to one or more qualified/registered candidates of their choice. Such “money” to expire after 4 years, whether given to a campaign or not (thus encouragine regular voting, and limiting the total cost to taxpayers). Then, when a voter actually votes, it will be “refilled” (a few months after the election). The public pays, but the amount is limited, and everyone who votes gets the same amount. Candidates have to convince voters they are the most worthy of donating funds to. Those who don’t vote for more than 4 years, won’t have money to donate until after they vote again. Candidates would be required file reports showing how the money was used, and can be required to repay any amounts that were used for improper or illegal purposes, and/or be banned from being a candidate future elections for a period of years.

Note, I'm not hooked on the 4 year timeframe, that's the minimum I would support. But I don't think it should be more than 8 years. Anyone who doesn't vote for a long time, while knowing these rules, clearly isn't really interested anyway.

Advantages:
• This eliminates all foreign and corporate campaign money. Campaign contributions can come only from registered voters.
• The “money” on the voter's card can only be given to, and used by, a properly registered candidate. It won’t work at stores, etc.
• You can further limit contributions to allow donations only to candidates who will be on the ballot in that voter’s precinct, thus candidates will solely be financed by their own constituents. No outside funding, the elections will not be influenced by outside interests.
• Unused campaign funds can be automatically returned to the Treasury 60-180 days after the election.

You can even have separate pools of money for federal, state, and county/locality elections, funded and amounts controlled, by the respective govt entity.

All of this is relatively easy to do using existing debit card payment technologies.

See my post on PACs, Parties, Corporate, and individual activities. for info on allowed and disallowed activities related to campaigns.

The Nature of Money

Many people misunderstand the nature of money, and that misunderstanding leads to misunderstandings about "hard money", "fiat currency", and the nature of banking, including "fractional reserve banking" (FRB). In this post, I'll cover these topics and attempt to clear up many of those misunderstandings.

The Nature of Money

Money is not value itself, money is a near universal (within an economy), temporary store of value, it exists solely for the purpose of facilitating exchange/business. Barter is complicated because you have to find buyer and seller who each have something of value to the other one, and the items can be bulky. If buyer and seller don't have items of value to the other, there will be no exchange. Money is the solution to that by creating a universal, easily exchanged, easily carried, unit of value.

It is only necessary for money to maintain it's value until it can be exchanged for other goods. Ideally, its value should be fairly stable for years, however, most money is exchanged within a few weeks, so stability over a period of a few months to a year is more than sufficient for it to function as money. The longer it's value remains stable, the better.

Money is not wealth. The total wealth in the US is ~$95T. Total economic activity (as measured by GDP) is ~ $18.5T. But the amount of money in circulation is ~$1.6T. Clearly, money, economic activity, and wealth are distinct measures. Money supply and economic activity are related, but aren't the same. Money and wealth (stored value) are only very loosely related.

Hard Money vs Fiat Money

Hard money refers to money made of, or backed by, something of intrinsic value, such as gold, silver, copper, platinum etc. The problem with "hard money" is that any such "thing of intrinsic value" has a value that changes relative to other goods, as its supply and demand change. Gold, silver, copper, etc. all change in value relative to other items because they have non-monetary uses that dramatically alter the demand, and new discoveries of deposits (or new ways of extracting them from known deposits) increase the supply. That makes for a money of limited stability of value. When those metals were used only for money and jewelry, it made sense to use them as a form of money, because they were scarce and the demand was largely driven by use as money, while supplies were constrained and usually belonged to the govt/ruler. However, all of those have significant industrial uses now, as does every other conceivable element or mineral.

For something to be an effective hard money, it must meet these requirement:

1. Have intrinsic value.
2. Be scarce, or have limited access by any means other than the money issuer.
3. Have no other demand for usage that could cause a supply constraint.

While #2 can be theoretically be enforced by law (aka fiat), #1 conflicts with #2 & #3. If something has no use other than as money, it has no inherent value. If it has competing uses, then it's either virtually unlimited in supply (which reduces it's inherent value), or it's subject to shortages and "increased value" due to the other demands. It simply can't exist in any meaningful way now. A well-managed fiat currency is actually more stable than any hard money can be. This is obvious when you grasp the nature of "hard money".

Money Supply and Fiat Currency Under FRB

Having established that hard money is not inherently stable, nor more so than a well-managed fiat (established by law) currency, that in fact, hard money is inherently limited in stability of value because it is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as all other goods, it is in fact less stable and thus less ideal than a well-managed fiat currency. It's now time to look at the nature of money supply with a fiat currency, which turns out to be significantly different from that of hard-currency.

The essential factor in maintaining a stable money supply is that money must never be introduced without the receiving party exchanging something of suitable value. As it turns out, this is the same as for any hard money, Thus, the amount of money in circulation is solely a representation of a portion of the wealth, in a conveniently carried and exchanged form.

To see this more clearly, lets look at the oft maligned fractional reserve banking (FRB) system. People deposit "money" into the bank, but the bank lends out more "money" than is on deposit. How does that not devalue the money in circulation? Consider each secured loan (we'll look at unsecured loans and limits to FRB shortly). In order to receive a loan, the borrower exchanges equity in some property for cash, thus making "liquid" some portion of the assets of that borrower. But notice that the total value of the property is unchanged, only which party has legal claim on the property. Now, from an economic view, it literally makes no difference if the bank used money that was deposited by others or whether they literally printed the money (e.g. issued a check), that money is backed by real property of value, exactly as hard currency is. As such, it makes no difference whether the bank lends out 1x or 10x as much as they have on deposit, because it's all secured by property of at least comparable value. The "money supply" has increased, but only because property was made "liquid" by the exchange. This is significantly different than with any hard currency, since the supply of the hard money material itself a constraint on the supply, and thus on the liquidity of the economy.

That additional currency now in circulation will stimulate economic activity (people don't borrow to hoard money, they borrow to buy and/or pay other debts). Likewise, the loan must be paid back, with interest, generating income for the bank to pay it's expenses, employees and shareholders, and to pay interest on the deposits, thus taking the borrowed money back out of circulation. FRB multiplies the ability to liquify property/equity, and increases the bank's ability to make money, and pay interest on, their deposits, effectively lowering the costs of banking.

Now, lets look at unsecured loans. Unsecured loans must be limited to a percentage of deposits, as there always exists the possibility that defaults could hamper the bank's ability to pay out deposited funds. Therefore, there must be a limit on the total amount of unsecured loans made vs total deposits. There is much more to consider with secured or unsecured loans, including creditworthiness of borrower, interest rates, demand accounts vs time deposit accounts, etc. but those are minutia not central to this discussion. The key is that there must be fairly strict limits on unsecured loans by banks.

Back to secured loans for the final portion. Clearly, defaults in either case will leave money out in circulation. For unsecured loans, that money comes out of the bank's profits, so it remains in balance. This creates a natural limit on the amount of unsecured loans, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be legal limits as well. For secured loans, the bank foreclosing on and selling the property that secured the loan, brings in the money that was borrowed. Any shortfall comes from the bank's profits, thus creating a limit on the amount of secured loans that it's prudent to lend. History shows that bankers don't always act prudently when lending. This brings us to the realization that there should be legal limits on the percentage of deposits that may be issued as secured loans too. It will be a different limit than that for unsecured loans, but there should be a legal limit that prevents banks from being too imprudent in lending.

Thus we see that amount of money in circulation has no impact on the value of money itself, so long as how it enters circulation is controlled by the requirement that it always be exchanged for comparable value. It doesn't cause inflation either, although, the interest paid on loans and deposits are factors that indirectly contribute to inflation. The more interest borrowers pay, and the greater percentage of the economy that is driven by loans, will impact the rate of inflation.

Notes on Banks and Banking in an Economy

Banks occupy a special place in an economy. They don't themselves produce any products of value, but as they do have significant control of the liquidity of assets and the money supply, and they have deposits from many people. Therefore, their stability is vital to local, state, regional, and national economic activity. They also have the unique ability to crash an economy, as we have seen numerous times. As such, no bank should be allowed to exceed a certain percentage of the market/deposits for a given area (e.g. MSA, state, region, or nation), so there need to be established threshold market share at each level at which the bank incurs additional oversight or regulation, and a higher threshold at which the bank must divest itself of assets to get below the threshold. So, while FRB itself isn't a problem, it must be restricted by laws and regulations to limit the damage any bank can cause if it fails.

Related articles:

• Money Supply, Its Amount, and Its Effect on the U.S. Economy
• United States Money Supply M0 1959-2018
• United States GDP 1960-2018
• US household wealth ticks up 1.4 percent to $94.8 trillion
• Derivation of U.S. Net Wealth
• How much U.S. currency is in circulation?

SNAP vs Corporate Subsidies, typical $50k family

If you see a post claiming SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) costs a typical $50k/yr taxpayer only $36, those numbers are simply wrong. Long story short, the corporate numbers and other numbers are calculated using two different and incompatible methods, so they can't be compared. And, both sets of numbers are wrong, based upon flawed calculation methods.

"SO, my monies aren't going to pay corporate subsidies?"

Some are, but not anywhere near that amount. Corporate subsidies are AT MOST 8x as much as SNAP ($600B vs $75B). Of that $600B, only $87B are "direct subsidies", the others are various tax benefits, so we're not actually paying them anything. So, in reality, it's $87B in corporate subsidies vs $75B in SNAP, or about 1.16x as much. Even 8x is a far cry from the 108x shown in the meme. 1.16x is just over 1/100th the of the difference claimed in the meme.

The actual numbers for SNAP are very hard to calculate, because there are many different ways you can calculate them that have valid claims, and they all give different numbers. But using these methods, SNAP costs that typical $50K earner somewhere between $106/yr and $700/yr depending upon the method, with corporate subsidies costing 1.16x as much.

The other numbers are similarly wrong, and are at least 3x as much as shown in the meme/original article. They're not even close to accurate.

Further analysis using actual numbers for a $50k taxpayer:

"A married person with one child making $50,000 a year will pay exactly $3,820 in federal taxes. Of those, $2100 is allocated to Social Security, and $725 is distributed Medicare. This leaves a whopping $995 to be used to pay for programs administrated by the Federal government."

Even ignoring the problems I pointed out previously, the total taxes paid is less than the claimed $4,000/$6,000 in "corporate subsidies", so clearly, the numbers are nonsense.

Above quote from this article (site no longer works) which explains how the numbers other than the $4,000 were calculated. As I said, that methodology is grossly flawed, but it's sufficient to prove the meme isn't even close.

The $6,000/yr figure comes from another source, and has even bigger issues than the $4,000/yr claim.

Here's the original article where the $36 and other claims in the meme come from.

Capitalism and Minimum Wage

Contrary to popular belief, Capitalism isn't simply "buy low, sell high". Capitalism is founded upon several principles, including free-market theory. One of the core principles of free-market theory is that you pay the full, unsubsidized cost of the goods and services you use. Subsidies create an artificial and unsustainable market. If you don't meet that condition, you don't, and can't, have a "market economy" that is central to Capitalism.

The labor a business uses requires a certain amount of money to live and maintain the health and well being of the person supplying that labor. That "minimal living wage", that is, a wage that pays the full cost of the “necessities” of life in that society, varies by location, but it is indeed a real, measurable amount that is NOT dependent upon the lifestyle of any individual, it's calculable based upon what is necessary for a typical family to live and remain as a healthy, productive part of that society, and it is already calculated for all parts of the USA (see related links). If you are paying less than that minimum living wage, then someone else must subsidize your labor. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter who is providing the subsidy, the fact is that your business is being subsidized, and therefore violates one of the core principles of capitalism.

The "X job isn't worth that much" argument is nonsense.
If that job is necessary to the operation of your business, and it can't be automated (or costs too much to automate), then you must pay some person to do that job. Without that labor, you have no business. Therefore, it is inherently worth at least the cost of a "minimum living wage". If the cost of labor (or other costs) forces you to price your product above what people will pay or keeps you from making a profit, then you don't have a viable capitalist business model. That is how capitalism works.

Therefore, paying at least such "minimum living wage", is actually necessary for capitalism to be sustained. Any business that cannot make a profit while paying a living wage is unsustainable as a for-profit capitalist business. For-profit businesses with unsustainable business models should be allowed to fail, to be replaced by better business models. That's part of the fundamental principles of capitalism. Since greed and the "profit motive" have repeatedly proven they will be used to distort and manipulate the market for personal gain when possible, having laws requiring businesses/employers to pay at least that wage, are prudent, if not required, for capitalism to be sustainable.

Shouldn't minimum wage be left up to the market to determine?
A person does not have a right (legally or ethically) to enter into a contract that obligates/requires anyone else to subsidize his life, unless he has explicit permission from the person/entity paying the subsidy. Nor, does an employer have a right to request or expect any employee to be subsidized by anyone else (taxpayers, parents, charities, etc.). Ergo, no employer has a right to offer, and no employee has a right to accept, a wage that requires subsidies from ANY OTHER PARTY, without the express consent of the person/entity providing such subsidy. So the market can and will determine how high wages are for any given position, except that the rate must not be less than the "minimum living wage".

Notes for clarification/completeness:
In capitalism, there are times when products are sold below cost, "going out of business", "clearance", "liquidation", "bankruptcy", "loss leaders", etc. but you'll notice that it's the "things" that are sold below cost, not the labor being paid less than a living wage. It's also not the normal course of business, all of those things are temporary in term, and all but "loss leader" items are one-time events when the business is failing/failed. No entity that relies upon subsidies should be operated as a for-profit entity.

Exceptions to the "minimum living wage" rule:
Some percentage of the population is not "able bodied" and/or has another form of disability. As a civilized society, we have said that government and/or charity programs will subsidize the living costs of these people. Similarly, teens/students living with their parents and/or seniors living with their family, may not need a full "living wage". In such cases, IF AND ONLY IF the person/entity providing the subsidy has agreed, then the person receiving the subsidy might be paid a lower wage consistent with their abilities AND the amount of subsidy provided.

Non-profit making activities:
The above is not to say that only profitable activities are valuable or worth pursuing, even in a capitalist society. For example, military, law enforcement, courts, and penal systems are necessary to society, yet they should never be organized to be profitable, as the profit motive calls for expansion and growth, and that is exactly what you don't want to encourage in those systems. It's not even appropriate to design those systems to attempt to recover their operating costs. Indeed, it's vital that such services be available to all, not just those who can afford to pay for them at any given moment.

There are also many types of activities that "serve the public good" which might not be economically viable as "for-profit" entities. Most government services, charities, and activities that serve the interests of society as a whole, are valuable and often necessary, and these activities are best operated as not-for-profit entities that rely upon taxes, fees, donations and/or other forms of subsidies for their continued operation. Not-for-profit entities, because they rely upon external subsidies, should be subject to caps on the maximum amount they can pay their labor, even/especially their most senior executives. That should be part of the terms or "costs" of operating on subsidies.

Expanded discussion and examples:
Labor is not a "thing", it's value isn't dependent solely upon how much you think it contributes to the company. Labor is a person, who must earn enough money to live on, and those costs rise over time, even if the contribution of their labor does not increase. Wages MUST increase with inflation.

Most "things", e.g. equipment, needs maintenance, and those maintenance costs increase over time. The same is true of labor. That the contribution of the equipment to your business does not increase over time, doesn't mean your maintenance costs will remain constant. The same is true of labor.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1861 in his first annual address to Congress.

It does not matter that you think the labor is only worth $5/hr. If it costs a minimum of $10/hr x40 hours/wk for "labor" to live in hat society, then you have to pay at least $10/hr, no matter how much you think the job is worth. In this regard, it's no different than buying a piece of equipment. You don't get to say "I'm only going to pay $5 for this $10 item because I think it's only worth $5". You either pay $10 minimum negotiated price, or you don't get the item to use.


Minimum wage is intended to be a "living wage"

It has been from it's inception. The claim that it's "not supposed to be" a permanent, wage that can support a family is a relatively modern one invented by minimum wage opponents. But even a cursory look at history proves that is has always been intended as a sustainable income for working adults.

"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
- Franklin D Roosevelt, 1933 in his statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, which established the federal minimum wage in 1933

Related Links:
• MIT Living Wage Calculator
• Wikipedia article on the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933
• Wikipedia article" on Free-Market theory.
• Wikipedia article on economic equilibrium, a core component of free-market theory and capitalism
• "Study"": Minimum Wage increases do not increase unemployment nor slow job growth."
• "Another Study""Minimum Wage increases do not increase unemployment"

--

Too Big To Fail, Never Again

I'm tired of hearing about the "onerous and oppressive regulations being imposed upon the financial services industry". They are specifically referring to the "Volcker rule" that is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Now, I'm not here to argue the benefits or weaknesses of the specifics of the Volcker Rule. I haven't read it's 300 pages, as I'm not in that industry, it may very well be a flawed piece of legislation.

I'm here to point out that the banking industry has only themselves to blame for this situation. First, they lobbied for, and successfully got key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act repealed, allowing commercial and investment banks to merge and share assets and liabilities. These provisions were repealed as part of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999. This was strongly supported by Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the financial services industry, and particularly, by Sanford Weill, CEO of Citicorp, which later became the largest bank (Citigroup) when it merged with Travelers Group, and many others in Congress and the banking industries.

After passage and several mega-mergers of commercial and investment banks, they began engaging in the practice of making high risk sub-prime mortgages, funding the "housing bubble" of escalating prices, sold mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) to other investors assigning them a AAA rating, while simultaneously making investments that those MBS would go down in value. In short, they engaged in manipulation of the market for their own enrichment, at a cost of many hundreds of billions to millions of homeowners, and trillions to the overall economy. Only a massive USD$700 billion bailout saved them from bankruptcy.

And then there is the still pending possibility of another financial crisis from the "derivatives" market they created, a crisis that could very well be larger than the problems so far.

So, in summary, they lobbied for deregulation, got it, then proceeded to engage in risky, and possibly fraudulent practices that resulted in a loss of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to people who we not part of the investment scheme. And now, they want to complain about the new regulations being imposed upon them. They haven't even admitted fault for causing the problem, and none have been held financially or legally accountable for these practices. They were in effect, gambling with "our" money, and indeed, the entire US and world economy.

Sorry, but until they take responsibility for their actions and the damage they've done, anything they say about how "onerous and oppressive" these new regulations are will fall on deaf ears. They've demonstrated that they aren't trustworthy to self-regulate, nor hold themselves accountable for their manipulations. I, and I suspect most of the US public, have no sympathy for them, and no trust in their categorization of these new regulations.

Many of the primary backers of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, including Alan Greenspan, Sanford Weill, and others have since said it was a mistake, that "the big banks should be broken up", that "too big to fail" is too big a risk to the economy and the country, and that self-interest and self-regulation can not be relied upon in keeping the industry in line.

“I was an advocate of the deregulation movement and I made -- along with a lot of other smart people -- a fundamental mistake, which is that deregulation works fine in industries which do not pervade the economy,”
- Retired Federal Judge Richard Posner

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ...."
- Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 and he supported it's repeal, testifying to Congress on the banking crisis in Oct 2008.

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking,” Mr. Weill, the former chief executive of Citigroup, told CNBC. “Have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.”
- Sanford Weill, former CEO Citigroup and one of the primary advocates for the passage of GLBA, quoted in the NYTimes article below.

They created this situation, now they have to deal with the consequences. And until they accept responsibility for it, nothing they say about the new regulations carries any weight. If and when they take responsibility for, or are held accountable for, their actions, there will be room to discuss what level of regulation is appropriate and necessary. But until then, they're simply not believable.

I'll conclude with a quote from a NYTimes article:

"In 2009, John S. Reed, who with Mr. Weill forged the megamerger that created Citigroup, apologized for creating a lumbering giant that needed multibillion-dollar bailouts from the government. Philip Purcell, the former chief executive of Morgan Stanley and David H. Komansky, the onetime leader of Merrill Lynch, two other main figures in the fight to repeal Glass-Steagall, have echoed similar concerns about deregulation."
- NYTimes

Update: 2015-10-17
Banks (including investment/financial services) occupy a special place in an economy. They have a unique capacity to boost, or collapse entire economies, based upon the actions of a few. It's fundamentally a risk to everyone to allow a private bank to become a significant part of any economy/market. For this reason, the restrictions on banking should be even more limited than anti-trust/monopoly laws for other industries, but the same principles should apply. See my post about free-markets for some thoughts on limits on market share in general, keeping in mind that more stringent limits should be applied to banks.

Related Links:
• Causes of the Global Financial Crisis
• Subprime Mortgage Crisis
• State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America by David Stockman
• An accurate history of the Glass-Steagall Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
• A post about the strengths and limits of Dodd-Frank
• A post about and an alternative approach
• A Bloomberg article on "too big to jail", which references this video by then Attorney General Eric Holder saying there is no such thing at "too big to jail", but his disclaimers also make it clear that there are considerations about the economic impact when preparing possible charges against large institutions.

Corporations Still Aren't People

In light of today's Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decision to not hear arguments in Western Tradition Partnership v Atty Gen of Montana, it's time to review, and reiterate why corporations are not people, and how SCOTUS erred in both Citizens United v FEC and the current case.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is my analysis and opinion. I'm exercising my right as citizen of the USA to criticize my government, and demand that they follow the US Constitution.

First, you may want to review my previous post Corporations Are Not People on this topic. In today's post, I'll strengthen the case by highlighting some key differences between people and corporations, including previous SCOTUS decisions that clearly indicate they are not entitled to the same protections as "natural persons".

Second, it's important to note that the SCOTUS decision in both cases was split 5-4, so it's clear that even among the justices, there are significant differences of opinion on these cases. Clearly, this matter is not settled.

Let us begin with a definition of "corporation":

"corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person ..."

Note the definition states "artificial" person.

Differences between corporations and people:

• Corporations are artificial entities created by the sovereign state(s). People are not, they exist independently of the states.
• Corporations can be owned, bought, and sold. People can not.
• A corporation's owners are shielded from liability for the actions of the corporation, and the officers can be shielded from liability. A person is not shielded from liability for his actions, nor for those for whom he/she is legal guardian.
• Corporations can not hold elected office. People can.
• Corporations can not be imprisoned. People can.
• Corporations can legally be killed, at the whim of the owner(s). This is not considered murder or homicide. Killing people is homicide. If it's without justifiable provocation, it's manslaughter or murder.
• Corporations can live indefinitely. People die.

Legal basis:
Perhaps the strongest legal evidence that corporations are not people comes from the Supreme Court itself:

...the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons." The Court has also held that a corporation's custodian of records can be forced to produce corporate documents even if the act of production would incriminate him personally.

Thus, previous SCOTUS decisions make it clear that the protections of the US Constitution don't automatically apply to "artificial persons". From this, we can determine that either none of the protections of the US Constitution apply to corporations, or that only certain rights apply. If it's certain rights, then we must define which ones, something that should be defined by law, not by court precedent.

Corporations are created by the sovereign states, not the federal govt, therefore, the SCOTUS has no business telling Montana that state laws limiting corporate contributions are invalid. The corporation is created by the state, and it derives it's rights from the state. The Federal govt only has jurisdiction over corporations engaged in interstate commerce.

A state has no right to grant corporations any rights in national elections as this would create unfair power for states that grant such rights to corporations. A state has the power only to grant, or deny the corporations rights in state elections and rights and privileges under state law. Thus it's untenable to claim that corporations can make any contribution to federal election campaigns, much less "unlimited" contributions.

This isn't a new concept. Montana has limited their contributions since 1912, and even President Theodore Roosevelt knew it over 100 years ago:

Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly.

Summary:
Corporations are protected by state laws governing their creation, liabilities, rights, and dissolution, not the rights guaranteed to people by the US Constitution, those rights come from a different creator. The Citizens United decision is wrong, and today's ruling is wrong. They're wrong under the US Constitution, they're inconsistent with previous SCOTUS rulings, they're inconsistent with common sense, and they're wrong ethically. It was wrong in 2010, and it's wrong today.

Update:
In light of the recent SCOTUS decision in Sebelius/Burwell vs Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Woods, where the court again mistakenly applied the 1st Amendment, specifically religious rights, to a corporation in a 5-4 split decision, I'm adding additional references and commentary, including the dissenting opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the actual dissent begins on page 60 of the above link to the SCOTUS decision, this link is just a few key points from the dissent).

Related Links:

• Theodore Roosevelt quotes and more
• 35 Quotes from the Founding Fathers supporting the separation of religion from government, illustrating how Burwell vs Hobby Lobby is inconsistent with the intent of the Founders and the US Constitution.
• A picture that points out some of the problems raised by the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby decision.
• Another look at the current SCOTUS, and their rulings.
• NYTimes First Amendment Protections Embraced By Corporations

The Great Imposters

According to conventional wisdom, there are three things you should never talk about in polite company, sex, politics, and religion. I'm about to address all three. I'm not going to be coarse, crude, or offensive, but I will be direct. Some readers may not like what I have to say, and a few might even take offense. Know in advance, that is not my intent, and read on if you choose.

You're welcome to agree or disagree and leave comments. Comments are moderated, but as long as the comments are civil (no name calling, insults, blaming, or demonstrably false information), I will allow them whether I agree with them or not. Remember, this is my soapbox, and your right to free speech does not mean I have to allow you to use my soapbox to say it. Be civil, or it won't be allowed here.

Let me start with I've never been a member of any political party. My views are most closely aligned with the Libertarian Party, but not completely because most Libertarians actually want (in my view) too little government. However, given that the nature of government is to grow, take more power, take more money, and become too intrusive, I welcome people fighting for "too little" govt as it helps counteract the natural tendency of bureaucracy. But this post isn't about the Libertarian Party.

This post is about the modern Republican Party, the GOP.

Most of my life, I've tended to side with the Grand Old Party on many issues, in large part because, despite the existence of several minor parties, most offices have don't have a minor party candidate running, so the choice is often between a Republican and a Democrat. On many issues, the GOP has been more closely aligned with my beliefs than the Democratic Party. That's not to say that I haven't supported and voted for numerous Democrats and more than a few minor party candidates, I have. I have always voted for candidates, not political parties.

Once upon a time, the GOP actually stood for some good things. See, many years ago, they actually believed in less government and individual liberty. According to Wikipedia:

American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism, as many principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism.

Founded in Northern States in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party...

"Free labor" referred to the Republican opposition to slave labor and belief in independent artisans and businessmen. "Free land" referred to Republican opposition to plantation system whereby the rich could buy up all the good farm land and work it with slaves, leaving the yeoman independent farmers the leftovers. The Party had the goal of containing the expansion of slavery, which would cause the collapse of the Slave Power and the expansion of freedom.

The GOP supported business generally, hard money (i.e., the gold standard), high tariffs to promote economic growth, high wages and high profits, generous pensions for Union veterans...

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Once upon a time, they had sound fiscal policies, and fought for individuals, and less government, and small business, and farmers. That Republican Party no longer exists. The current Republican Party bears little resemblance to that GOP. They call themselves conservatives, but that's only a half-truth, they're reactionaries.

The Republicans' attempt to write religious beliefs into law at the federal level is a full fledged assault on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That guarantee of freedom of religion, also guarantees everyone else freedom from your religion. That applies to the current assaults on access to birth control, abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and others. Your rights end where they start to infringe on the rights of others. If you don't understand and honor that concept, you are not qualified to hold elected office in this country.

If you're opposed to using birth control, abortion, modern medicine, modern electric/electronic conveniences, or working on the Sabbath (whichever day you consider that to be), you have a right to hold that belief. Likewise, if you believe in abstinence only as "sex education", no pre-marital sex, and the teaching of creation (in church or church schools), that is your right. If you're an atheist or agnostic, that is your right. What you do not have a right to do is force others to abide by those beliefs.

"Frankly, one of our political parties is insane, and we all know which one it is." - Bruce Bartlett, former Economic Advisor to President Reagan.

The fundamentalist Republicans' attempts to outlaw abortion, or to make it more traumatic (it's already very traumatic for the woman) for women, attempts to make birth control harder to obtain, attempts to teach creation in public (e.g. taxpayer funded) schools, animosity toward and denial of benefits to homosexuals, and other such attempts to force their religious views on everyone are unconscionable. They have simultaneously abandoned all compassion and offers of aid to those in need (in direct violation of the teachings of the Bible they cite as their guide), while citing that same Bible as "proof" of the moral superiority of their views on these topics. They have perverted the Republican Party into an instrument to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. This faction of the Republican Party (which includes much of the leadership of the GOP) is not morally superior, they're morally bankrupt.

If you believe in the things this country and/or the Republican Party were founded upon, then search your conscience and see whether or not you can allow these imposters to continue to distort everything this country and the GOP were founded to support.

This power grab by the fundamentalists has been going on for far too long. I have fought against it, I have denounced it, and in some ways, I've overlooked it, while hoping it would improve. I'm sorry I waited so long. I can no longer tolerate this corruption of our government for their own purposes, and I can no longer grant them the use of the term Republican Party.

It's time we demand that these imposters stop calling themselves Republicans. The party leaders and beliefs they espouse are a disgrace to the legacy and beliefs of the founders of the Republican Party, and to the founders of our country. I don't know what I'll call them, perhaps we should just call them "The Great Imposters".

Reform the Republican Party, or end it, but don't let this faction destroy everything it once stood for, and what this country stands for.

A brief note: From a strict constitutional perspective, states may have the power to make laws regarding religion, however, they have that power only by agreement of the residents of that state, it's not an inherent power of the state. I am personally opposed to granting states that power, yet there is nothing in the US Constitution to prohibit it. Perhaps there should be, but it's not there now. That's a subject for another discussion. See the NYT Op-Ed in the related links section below.

Related links:

• NYT Op-Ed piece A Revolutionary Idea. A brief history of the idea of separation of church and state.
• Huffington Post Religion And Politics Don't Mix, Major Religious Groups Tell Presidential Candidates
• Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi Arizona Debate: Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost
• Associated Press - Santorum says he doesn't believe in separation of church and state
• Washington Post blog - Jeb Bush finds Republican debates ‘a little troubling’
• NYTimes blog Do Nothings and Know Nothings
• Bill Moyers interview with Bruce Bartlett.
• Facebook post by a life-long Republican covering some aspects of why he won't vote Republican this time. This one gets into more specifics about the current candidates and their policies. It's lengthy, but worth reading.
• Rachel Maddow blog It's Reagan's party no more, contains links to several other sources who have reached the same/similar conclusions.
• Opinion piece in the Washington Post, Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
• Megan McCain, Why the Republican Party Needs to Wake Up
• The touching personal story of a former republican.
• I mostly agree with the concerns expressed about the Republican and Libertarian parties here Why I fled libertarianism — and became a liberal
• Paul Krugman Enemies of the poor"
• Another disillusioned Republican GOProud leader - Why I left the GOP"
• And another... Salon: Why I Left the GOP
• Yet another view Salon: How the GOP Became the White Man's Party
• Robert Reich writes about a friend who left for similar reasons.
• A Texas Judge leaves the GOP over "pettiness and bigotry".
• Another lifelong conservative breaking with today's GOP

A Black Eye For Pink Ribbons

When I first heard Susan G Komen for the Cure (Komen) was disqualifying Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP) from future grants, I was disappointed. I've been a supporter of both organizations, and I respect the work Komen has done to bring awareness, education, and research to breast cancer. I've sponsored people in the 3-Day and I've bought "Pink" products. I've always been a vocal supporter of their work.

I also respect and value the work of PP and do not wish to see their funding cut. They provide access to valuable sexual health services, information, and education for more than 3 million of people annually. Let me state that I am not in favor of abortions. However they are legal, and I believe they should be legal in most of the circumstances where they are now legal. You may hold a different opinion, but I invite you to read on. This post isn't about abortion.

I did a lot of research the past couple days, here's what I found:

• Despite claims to the contrary, abortions represent only 3% of the services PP provides and only ~10% of their patients. 97% are non-abortion services and 90% of PP patients do not receive an abortion. PP isn't just about abortion, it's about all those other services.


• The grant from Komen to PP affiliates was for less than $700,000 annually. It's less than 1% of the budget of either organization. It's less than the combined salary of the Presidents of the two organizations (more on that later). Given the size of these two organizations, it's not really worth arguing about. It's a tempest in a tea pot.

If it's not worth arguing about, then why am I bothering to write about it? Because I found out a lot more:

1. Because of the publicity around this, PP raised more than an extra $1M in 48 hours, completely offsetting the annual loss from Komen in 2 days. In reality, PP doesn't need any funding from Komen.


2. PP was using those dollars to provide additional breast examinations. A lot of examinations. Komen grants paid for approximately 170,000 of 4,000,000 breast exams performed by PP over the time that Komen has been giving grants to PP. 6400 of those resulted in a referral for Mammogram. That's a lot of exams, and a lot of lives that may have been saved. So, by any measure, I think it was worth the money.


3. In FY 2008 and 2009, PP spent 16% of it's revenue for management, general, admin, and fundraising expenses (non-service expenses). 1% for international family planning services. 17% for domestic non-medical services. The remaining 66% went for providing medical services those who need it. In FY2008, PP and it's ~ 100 affiliates had total revenue of $1.1B (revenue for just the national office was $106M).
   
   The President's compensation was $384,295 (based in NY with a high cost of living).
   


4. In 2007 Komen spent 60.3% of revenue on (grants for) research, education, and treatment of breast cancer. That means 39.7% went for admin, fundraising, office expenses, travel, and other overhead. In 2008, it was worse, less than 49% went to (grants for) research, education, and treatment, over 51% went for overhead. In 2008, only 40% of the revenue went to research.
   
   Komen had total revenue of $159M. The President's compensation was $558,607 (based in Dallas with a much lower cost of living).

That's right, only around half the donations to Komen went toward the very things they're raising funds for, and less than half actually goes toward finding treatments or cures.

How can the President of Komen face families and friends of breast cancer patients and ask them for their time and money, knowing that she is earning more than 10 times the national household income, knowing that she earns 5, 10, or 20 times as much as the very people shes asking to donate money, while it's those very donations that pay her salary?

To me, that is unconscionable. She may fit in with the wealthy donors and large corporate donors, but I can't see how that's at all consistent with the mission of Susan G Komen for the Cure. I've been a business owner, I know you need to hire quality people, and you may have to pay more for them, but the discrepancy between the pay of the Presidents of these two organizations highlights how inefficient and cavalier Komen has been with our donations.

Why Komen was wrong:
Two days after it started, Komen put out a video explaining their position and reasoning. They had adopted rules that prevented people or organizations that were under investigation from applying for new grants. While that sounds like a prudent way to protect funds of the charity, there is a serious flaw. An investigation does not mean any law or policy has been broken, it just means some official agency has started an investigation. In this instance, one Senator started an investigation of PP based upon pressure from anti-abortion groups.

PP has not been accused of or charged with a crime, much less been found guilty. And that is the major flaw with Komen's new policy. PP was being punished without even being accused, charged, or given a chance to defend themselves. Innocent until proven guilty, and they should at least remain eligible until they've been formally charged with a crime.

The Future:
Today, Komen reversed their decision and will be revising their new policy. But for me, it's too little, too late. See, I've already done the research, and I don't like what I found. I can no longer support Komen, they're too wasteful with donations. They also appear to be driven by political factors rather than by the needs of the patients. That's not what I expect from an organization who claims to be "for the cure".

Another problem with Komen is that we no longer need to raise awareness of breast cancer. You can't drive down the street, or walk through a store without seeing pink ribbons and other pink products. We're all very aware now. It's time to cut back on the advertising and awareness, and focus the money on research and treatment.

Komen has been the center of several other recent controversies. So called "pinkwashing" - putting a pink ribbon on unhealthy products, and threatening other charities and organizations over using the phrase "for the cure" or "for a cure".

This incident has shined a light on the darker aspects of Komen. If they "clean up their act", get the overhead costs down to a reasonable level, including significantly reducing the pay of the President and other officers or board members to be in line with other such organizations, then I'll reconsider. I'm still in support of finding effective treatments and cures for all types of cancer, including breast cancer, but until I see a major change, Komen is off my list of charities that I support.

Komen did the right thing, for the wrong reasons:
Numbers 3 and 4 above point to a fundamental problem with charities funding charities. Komen takes 40%-50% for overhead, and PP will have another 16% overhead. The result, only about 40% of people's initial donation is actually going toward these breast cancer screenings. Even if the percentages are smaller, you're still going to see double overhead. For that reason, and that reason alone, Komen should deny future requests from charities, including PP. PP can perform their own (more efficient) fundraising, making even more money available for patient care.

Update 2014-01-06:
Komen has changed many executives, slightly lowered pay for the replacements, but they're paying $475K/yr to their new CEO. Still very high compared to PP and most other large charities. They also had 22% lower revenue.

Related links:

• Planned Parenthood 2010 Annual Report
• PP 2010 990 form
• I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Komen's Race Is For Money, Not Cure
• Komen Halted Funding for $12 Million in Stem Cell Research Like We Wouldn’t Notice
• Witch Hunt or Policy Shift? Susan G. Komen Defends Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding
• Reuters: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science.
• Watch Stephen Colbert’s Defense of Planned Parenthood (from April 2011, humor, may contain language)