Category: Leadership

The Mess That Is Congress

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Henry Driggers Park, Brunswick, GA – December 2023 photo by Kyle Morgan

“Dress me up for battle when all I want is peace
Those of us who pay the price come home with the least”

(from 1976’s “Harvest for the World”, by the Isley Brothers)

There are only 11 days left until Christmas, and there are only three more days this year when the Senate is in session, and just two days left for the House. That schedule could be amended and lengthened if both Houses can reach agreement on anything before they break this Friday.

Prime among the legislation that should/must pass is aid for Ukraine. And Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy’s in Washington to try to help turn a few politicians to help. From the WaPo:

“The visit — less than three months after Zelenskyy’s last trip to Washington — comes at a critical time for the supplemental appropriations bill….Republicans have demanded that the package include border policy changes, and some Democrats criticized the White House on Monday for being willing to give up too much in those negotiations after Biden said he was willing to agree to “significantly more” to strike a deal.”

Biden says he’s willing to deal, but Congress seems very likely to leave for the holidays without passing any new Ukraine package. From David Frum in The Atlantic:

“The ostensible reason is that they want more radical action on the border than the Biden administration has offered. The whole aid package is now stalled, with potentially catastrophic consequences for Ukraine. Ukrainian units are literally running out of ammunition.”

More:

“How is any of this happening? On past evidence, a clear majority of Senate Republicans sincerely want to help Ukraine. Probably about half of House Republicans do too. In a pair of procedural test votes in September, measures to cut or block aid to Ukraine drew, respectively, 104 and 117 Republican votes of the 221 (Republicans then) in the caucus.”

Biden’s offer to negotiate with Republicans about the border is meaningful. The fundamental reason for today’s border crisis is that would-be immigrants game the asylum system. The system is overwhelmed by the numbers claiming asylum. Most of those claims will ultimately be rejected, but the processing of each takes years. In the meantime, most asylum seekers will be released into the US.

Biden’s proposal is $14 billion of additional funding that would pay for 1,600 new staff in the asylum system. New hires can speed up the process, reducing the incentive for asylum claimants who get de facto US residency while their claim is pending.

But are Republicans willing to negotiate? It doesn’t seem like they are. The Republicans in the Senate’s  position is stated by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said:

“There’s a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Schumer….This is not a traditional negotiation, where we expect to come up with a bipartisan compromise on the border. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental.”

This is 2023: For some Republicans, what matters isn’t what they get, but how they get it.

That’s also true in the House where Speaker Johnson (R-Bible) told Zelenskyy that the US southern border should come first in negotiations with Democrats over aid for Ukraine.

Clearly the Republican House members are in it to strike poses and television hits. They do not want to make deals. They each want to position themselves as the one true conservative too pure for dealmaking. The only things they’re willing to admit they want are the things they know to be impossible.

It’s a complicated situation, because House Republicans have one set of immigration demands while Republicans in the Senate refuse to say what their demands are.

This means Biden has to make a deal that Senate Democrats won’t want. Otherwise we’re headed to a “no” that will doom Ukraine and disgrace the US in the eyes of the world while doing nothing to remedy the crisis at the border.

If Congressional leadership was ever needed, it’s needed today.

Jon V. Last in the Bulwark lists the two real-world reasons for Biden to give in. First, that Ukraine is more important than our domestic immigration policy:

“The war is a finite event, the results of which will influence global economics and security for years and decades to come. Depending on the outcome, NATO will either congeal or fracture. Peace and security in Europe will either stabilize or destabilize. China will either be deterred or encouraged in its quest to subjugate Taiwan.”

Second, immigration is a perennial challenge for America. Even if we “solved” current immigration problems today, next year, we’d have more immigration problems to re-solve:

“Immigration does need reform. Huge sections of the system are broken, the humanitarian crisis at the border is real, and there are some areas where Democrats and Republicans have similar views of which reforms are needed.”

Jon Last also points out that there are good political reasons for Biden to make a deal. First, a deal makes Republicans co-owners of the border problem. For Republicans, immigration is like abortion: It’s not an issue they want to solve; it’s a political club they want to wield.

Second, Biden can paint Republicans as anti-Ukraine even after making an immigration deal. He can say that Republicans didn’t want to fund Ukraine (which polls well with voters) so he had to take action to make sure they didn’t hand Putin a victory.

Third, an immigration deal shores up Biden’s position with Hispanic and swing voters. Immigration is a very important issue to voters and large majorities of them disapprove of Biden’s immigration policies.

Fourth, Biden can then reinforce his 2024 narrative that the election is a choice between governing, or chaos. He’s going to try to disqualify Trump and make 2024 a contest between a workhorse who gets bipartisan compromises done and a chaos agent who burns everything down.

JV Last says:

“Cutting a deal on immigration in order to get aid to Ukraine lets Biden say (a) “I’m the guy who gets business done by doing bipartisan compromise,” but also (b) “If you don’t like this deal, Democratic voters, then we have to win back the House.”

Good thinking from Last.

Wrongo has generally steered clear of debates over immigration and the Wall because they have a high noise to signal ratio, and neither side is always great on the facts.

It’s curious: You would assume that all Republicans should be pounding on their Congressional representatives to increase the number of immigration judges immediately! But they aren’t since that would conflict with their idea of shrinking the administrative state. They shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

One way to cut illegal immigration down would be to crack down on foreign remittances. Most immigrants are sending money back home to help the rest of their families survive. If remittances required an ID card that only citizens or those with a valid visa could obtain, remittances would fall.

All we can do now is hope for cooler heads to make a deal before year end.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Suicides Hit A Record

The Daily Escape:

San Juan river cuts through monocline ridge, UT – November 2023 drone photo by Hilary Bralove. It is believed by many that the Navajo people based their rug and basket weaving patterns on what they saw in these geologic formations.

The temporary truce in the Israel/Hamas war is over. Reprobate Congresscritter George Santos (R-NY) was ousted from the House, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor died. She was the swing vote in the Bush v. Gore case that stopped the Florida recount and handed the 2000 presidential election to GW Bush. This was the first time that Republicans realized that if they controlled the Court, they could fix elections.

But on a pretty Saturday in southern New England, let’s turn our attention to a news article that hasn’t gotten much interest. From the issue, we learn that:

“More people died from suicide in the United States last year than any other year on record, dating to at least 1941, according to provisional data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

They quote the Kaiser Family Foundation who measure the suicide deaths per 100,000 of population: (brackets by Wrongo)

“Suicide deaths are increasing fastest among people of color, younger individuals, and people who live in rural areas. Between 2011 and 2021, suicide death rates increased substantially among people of color, with the highest increase among AIAN people [American Indian and Alaska Native people]  (70% increase, from 16.5 to 28.1 per 100,000), followed by Black (58% increase, from 5.5 to 8.7 per 100,000), and Hispanic (39% increase, 5.7 to 7.9 per 100,000) people….The suicide death rate also increased in adolescents (48% increase, from 4.4 to 6.5 per 100,000) and young adults (39% increase, from 13.0 to 18.1 per 100,000) between 2011 and 2021….”

Suicide rates are up by nearly 50% in adolescents over the last decade, while suicides among Black people are up by almost 60%. These aren’t trends, they’re explosive changes. What we’re seeing in the data is our world in chaos.

Wrongo often says that American life has fallen apart over the past 30 years. People struggle to pay their bills; many do that by accumulating debt. For some, that struggle turns them to embrace demagogues, people who scapegoat innocents, or promise to take their rights away, robbing them of  their personhood.

When we see suicide rising particularly among groups who struggle the most for their existence, it says that something has gone terribly wrong with the American model. And in the suicide statistics, there is confirmation that our nearly Darwinian model is what’s wrong. Adolescents and minorities aren’t committing suicide at these rates because they can’t get therapy, but because they feel as if there’s little or no future for them. Sadly, they are told by many pundits and politicians that everything’s fine.

Perhaps this partially explains why Biden seems to be doing so badly in polls of young voters.

As one of the commenters at the issue says:

“It shouldn’t be ‘The pursuit of happiness’ it should be ‘The amelioration of misery’. Being free to pursue happiness when there isn’t enough…left to go around doesn’t do ‘We the people’ any good.”

So, it’s time to forget about Santos, Kissinger and Hamas for a few minutes. Tune in to your Saturday Soother, where we try to get distance from the news for long enough to be able to handle whatever’s coming next.

Here on the Fields of Wrong, we’ve completed our fall clean-up and now it’s on to putting up the deer fencing that protects the bushes around the Mansion. The tree is up and illuminated, and the first members of our family are coming to see it today.

While it’s a beautiful day in the northeast, it makes sense for you to stay indoors for now. Start by brewing up a mug of “The Antidote” coffee ($19.50/12oz.) from Apocalypse Coffee in Melbourne, FL. Now grab a comfy chair by a south facing window and watch and listen to Schubert’s “Serenade”. Written two years before his death, it’s a perfect example of the melancholic music Schubert was so well known for:

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Kissinger Has (Finally) Left The Building

The Daily Escape:

 Camden, ME – November 2023 photo by Daniel F. Dishner. Note the star: It’s on top of nearby Mt.Battie.

Kissinger may have changed the world, but that isn’t always a good thing. The media are calling his legacy “complicated”. For Wrongo, it isn’t complicated. He may have gotten Nixon to China and negotiated (?) the end of the war in Vietnam, but his time on our foreign policy stage is strewn with death and destruction. Think about the carpet bombing of Cambodia that led to the demonstrations against the war in May 1970 and to the murders at Kent State and Jackson State University. Think about the coup in Chile that overthrew Salvador Allende.

Now, Nixon’s entire Cabinet is dead.

Kissinger’s philosophy was to look at “the big picture”. He was gladdened by how his China diplomacy rattled the Soviets. Most of Wrongo’s current thinking about Kissinger comes from reading Christopher Hitchens’ 2001 book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”. Hitchens talks about Kissinger’s role in the destruction of Chilean democracy in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship. And when Pinochet ordered the assassination of dissenter and former U.S. ambassador Orlando Letelier on US soil by blowing up his car in Washington, Kissinger was fine with that.

He was responsible for the prolongation of the Vietnam War through the sabotage of Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 Vietnam peace talks along with the civilian deaths from the US’ bombing in Laos and Cambodia, helping to usher in the Khmer Rouge, while also not doing anything positive to win the Vietnam war. Kissinger then became supportive of the Khmer Rouge. He saw its leader, Pol Pot as a counterweight against North Vietnam. He asked Thailand’s foreign minister to tell the Khmer Rouge: “We will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”

That was Kissinger’s moral philosophy.

Kissinger was behind the Greek military junta’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974, and the Pakistani army’s crimes against humanity in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). And we shouldn’t forget the Indonesian invasion and subsequent destruction of East Timor.

Quite the record for a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Late in life. Kissinger continued supporting authoritarians including Putin. Kissinger intervened in Putin’s imperialist war in Ukraine in 2022 to support the idea that the West should bully Zelensky into giving up territory to the Russians. He was also on the board of Theranos helping to facilitate the fraud while lining his pockets.

Wrongo wrote earlier this year about how he started out as a Kissinger fanboy, having read his 1957 book “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” while in high school. It criticized the Eisenhower Administration’s “massive retaliation” nuclear doctrine. It proposed the use of tactical nuclear weapons on a regular basis to help win wars. By the time that Wrongo was running a tactical nuclear missile base in the mid-1960s, he was no longer a fan. From Wrongo:

“Wrongo met Kissinger in the mid-1980s at an event hosted by David Rockefeller at his Pocantico Hills estate. HK was walking his dog, a particularly obstreperous Golden Retriever. Wrongo asked “What’s the dog’s name?” Kissinger replied: “Madman”.  Could there be a more perfect name for a Kissinger family pet?”

Here are a few headlines announcing Kissinger’s death:

You’ve gotta love the Rolling Stone headline.

Kissinger’s legacy is defined by his role in the US’s resumption of ties with China. He did the groundwork for Nixon’s 1972 visit to China and made more than 100 trips to the country over the years. The WaPo noted that the China state broadcaster labeled Kissinger an “old friend of the Chinese people.”

Let’s close with another possibly apocryphal story about Kissinger by Corey Robin:

Let’s hope that Henry the K is having a really hot time in his new condo.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Democrats Need New Messaging

The Daily Escape:

Cholla Cactus at sunrise, Joshua Tree NP – November 2023 photo by Michelle Strong

Yesterday’s column described how confusing current polling data is with less than a year to go before the 2024 presidential election. We can easily overdose on polls, but in general, they seem to be pointing toward a very difficult re-election for Biden.

At the risk of contributing to the OD, here’s another example of terrible poll for Biden. It comes from Democratic stalwarts Democracy Corps, run by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg:

“President Biden trails Donald Trump by 5 points in the battleground states and loses at least another point when we include the independent candidates who get 17% of the vote. Biden is trying to win these states where three quarters believe the country is on the wrong track and 48% say, “I will never vote for Biden.”

What to make of all this? Wrongo thinks it’s time to take a different approach to the Democrat’s messaging. Let’s start with a quick look at the NYT’s David Leonhardt’s new book, “Ours Was the Shining Future”. Leonhardt’s most striking contention is based on a study of census and income tax data by the Harvard economist Raj Chetty: Where once the great majority of Americans could hope to earn more than their parents, now only half are likely to. From The Atlantic:

“Of Americans born in 1940, 92% went on to earn more than their parents; among those born in 1980, just 50% did. Over the course of a few decades, the chances of achieving the American dream went from a near-guarantee to a coin flip.”

As we said yesterday, the American Dream is fading. Leonhardt says that the Democrats have largely abandoned fighting for basic economic improvements for the working class. Some of the defining progressive triumphs of the 20th century, from labor victories by unions and Social Security under FDR to the Great Society programs of LBJ, were milestones in securing a voting majority. More from The Atlantic:

“Ronald Reagan took office promising to restore growth by paring back government, slashing taxes on the rich and corporations…gutting business regulations and antitrust enforcement. The idea…was that a rising tide would lift all boats. Instead, inequality soared while living standards stagnated and life expectancy fell behind…peer countries.”

Today, a child born in Norway or the UK has a far better chance of out-earning their parents than one born in the US. More context from The Atlantic: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“From the 1930s until the late ’60s, Democrats dominated national politics. They used their power to pass…progressive legislation that transformed the American economy. But their coalition, which included southern Dixiecrats as well as northern liberals, fractured after…Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” exploited that rift and changed the electoral map. Since then, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote.”

The Atlantic makes another great point: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“The civil-rights revolution also changed white Americans’ economic attitudes. In 1956, 65% of white people said they believed the government ought to guarantee a job to anyone who wanted one and to provide a minimum standard of living. By 1964, that number had sunk to 35%.”

America’s mid-century economy could have created growth and equality, but racial suppression and racial progress led to where we remain today.

Leonhardt argues that what Thomas Piketty called the “Brahmin left” must stop demonizing working-class people who do not share its views on cultural issues such as abortion, immigration, affirmative action and patriotism. From Leonhardt:

“A less self-righteous and more tolerant left could build what successfully increased access to the American Dream in the past: a broad grass-roots movement focused on core economic issues such as strengthening unions, improving wages and working conditions, raising corporate taxes, and decreasing corporate concentration.”

Can the Dems adapt both their priorities and messaging to meet people where they are today?

The priorities must change first. What would it take to establish the right priorities for the future? Stripping away the wedge issues that confuse and divide us, America’s priorities should be Health, Education, Retirement and Environment (“HERE”). It’s an acronym that sells itself: “Vote Here”.

(hat tip to friend of the blog, Rene S. for the HERE concept.)

Wrongo hears from young family members and others that all of the HERE elements are causing very real concerns. Affordable health care coverage still falls short. Regarding education, college costs barely seem to be worth shouldering the huge debt burdens that come with it.

Most young people think that they have no real way to save for retirement early in their careers when there’s the most bang for the buck. They also feel that Social Security won’t be there for them. From the NYT:

“In a Nationwide Retirement Institute survey, 45% of adults younger than 27 said they didn’t believe they would receive any money from the program.”

Today, only about 10% of Americans working in the private sector participate in a defined-benefit pension plan, while roughly 50% contribute to 401(k)-type, defined-contribution plans.

Finally, people today feel that their elders have created an existential environmental threat that will be tossed into their laps. A problem for which there may not be a solution.

As Leonhardt argues, these HERE problems should have always been priorities for Democrats. But for decades, the Party hasn’t been willing to pay today’s political price for a long term gain in voter loyalty. That is, until Biden started working on them in 2020.

But every media outlet continues to harp on inflation and the national debt. Much of what would be helpful in creating a HERE focus as a priority for Democrats depends at least somewhat on government spending. No one can argue that our national debt is high. It is arguable whether it can safely go higher or if it must be reigned in at current levels.

To help you think about that, we collected $4.5 trillion in taxes in 2022, down half a $trillion vs. what we collected in 2021. Estimates are that the Trump tax cuts cost about $350 billion in lost revenue/year.

Looking at tax collections as a percentage of GDP, it’s less than 17% in the US, well below our historical average of 19.5%. There are arguments to keep taxes low, but if you compare the US percentage to other nations, Germany has a ratio of 24%, while the UK’s is 27% and Australia’s is 30%.

If we raised our tax revenue to 24% of GDP, which is where Germany is now, we would eliminate the US deficit.

There’s a great deal of tension in the electorate between perception and reality. And it’s not caused by partisanship: Democrats and independents are also exhibiting a disconnect, too.

Democrats have to return to being the party of FDR and LBJ. They need to adopt the HERE priorities and build programs around them.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Biden’s Birthday

The Daily Escape:

Eastern Bluebird, Cape Cod, MA – November 2023 photo by Ken Grille Photography

“Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.” – Yogi Berra

Biden celebrated his 81st birthday on Monday. Although this isn’t breaking news, as if on cue there were plenty of: “Is Biden Too Old?” faux concern expressed by journalists and pundits across the media landscape. As Wrongo has said before, Biden is visibly old. He looks like many older men who have remained physically fit: They seem thinner with voices that become more gravely with time.

From Paul Campos:

“When Biden was born in 1942, the…life expectancy for American males at birth was 62.6 years. 81 years later, it’s possible to estimate within an extremely high degree of accuracy how long American men born in 1942 will end up living, on average. The answer is 71.1 years, i.e., 14% longer than their…life expectancy at birth.”

Wow! Biden is old! Campos describes the two alternative definitions of life expectancy. First, period life expectancy, which is “life expectancy at birth,” a statistical construct. Period life expectancy isn’t a prediction: it’s a statement of a statistical fact. That fact is, if age adjusted mortality rates were to remain constant over the course of a cohort’s lifetime, it would indicate the average age at which people in that cohort died.

The second is called cohort life expectancy. This is a look back at how long people actually lived. When Biden was born in 1942, the period life expectancy for American males at birth was 62.6 years. This alternative definition of life expectancy how long people actually live, is called cohort life expectancy. That is 71.4 years in Biden’s case.

The gap between period life expectancy and cohort life expectancy was at one point nearly 20%. It turns out that people born in the US in 1900 lived to be on average 56 rather than the expected 47 years. With the massive improvements in medicine and public health over the last 120 years, the difference between period and cohort life expectancy are diminishing.

Period life expectancy isn’t a prediction, and it’s very inaccurate. Nevertheless it is almost always interpreted by the media as a prediction.

If Wrongo had one request for Biden’s handlers it would be to teach him to add more color, more inflection, to his voice. Everyone knows that he will occasionally trip over a word or two when speaking. That problem is as old as the man himself. From the NYT: (brackets by Wrongo)

“While Mr. Biden shuffles when he walks, talks in a low tone that can be hard to hear and sometimes confuses names and details in public…[his staff]…note that he maintains a crushing schedule that would tire a younger president.”

And while it is easy to see that Biden remains in command of situations that would cause younger men to freeze, better projection of his words and ideas would go a long way to blunting the finger-wagging ageists who jump on his every appearance on the world stage.

That said, Wrongo thinks that Americans can hold two competing thoughts at the same time: Biden is older than Trump but is competent and accomplished. While Trump is younger and a menace to America. To Wrongo, it seems that the press is more concerned about Biden having a birthday than about Trump becoming Hitler.

The media who are pushing Biden’s age choose to ignore Trump’s age. He’s 77 and will be 78 if elected, and 82 at the end of his term. He’s not aging well. In his recent campaign appearances, he’s mistaken Biden for Obama 7 times, claimed that Biden will start World War II and said that Jeb Bush started the Iraq War.

These are just the highlights, and there are many more alarming gaffes. Think about what a second Trump term would bring: a dictator-adjacent felon who wants to weaponize the DOJ to take revenge on his former political appointments.

Despite Biden’s many achievements, during one of the toughest periods in our recent history, the media has planted and nurtured the idea that Biden is unfit to be president. Why? Well, because of nothing beyond how Biden seems in videos. After thousands of articles saying Biden’s too old, many in America are willing to dump the president that ended Trump’s reign of error.

Let’s get real: Biden has rung up a fine record as president. CLEARLY, his age and experience have given him the ability to make decisions that less experienced politicians probably would not make. Biden has ably handled foreign crises and had the most productive first three years of any president since LBJ.

All the while, his opponent is rapidly decompensating. This from a man who has proven his inability to put the country first in his thinking. The contrast is stunning, and more obvious than the media seems capable of being honest about.

The sad truth is that neither Party is willing to take the risk of nominating a younger candidate who might underperform what Biden and Trump did in the 2020 presidential election.

In the meantime, happy birthday Joe Biden, who statisticians predict will be approximately one year older than he is today on election day 2024!

It probably won’t be long before we see a headline saying, “If Biden really cared about the environment he wouldn’t put so many candles on his birthday cake.”

Facebooklinkedinrss

How Can America Handle The Costs Of Elder Care?

The Daily Escape:

The start of US Highway 6, outside of Bishop, CA – September 2023 photo by Steve Wolfe

(There will be no Saturday Soother this week. Wrongo is on the road.)

Millions of older Americans from the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are facing a dilemma as they “age in place.” They must figure out how to pay for increasingly complex medical care. The NYT quotes Richard W. Johnson, director of the program on retirement policy at the Urban Institute:

“People are exposed to the possibility of depleting almost all their wealth….”

The prospect of dying broke is an imminent threat for the Boomers. About 10,000 of them turn 65 every day between now and 2030. They’re expecting to live into their 80s and 90s at the same time as the price tag for long-term care (LTC) is exploding. Currently LTC expense is outpacing inflation and approaching a half-trillion dollars a year, according to federal researchers.

By 2050, the population of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase by more than 50% to 86 million. The number of people 85 or older will nearly triple to 19 million. The Times has a chart of how many of those who need long-term care will die broke:

Some older Americans have prepared for this possible future by purchasing LTC insurance back when it was still affordable. Since then they’ve paid the monthly premiums, even as those premiums continued to rise. But this isn’t the norm. Many adults have no plan at all or assume that Medicare, which kicks in at age 65, will cover their health costs. But Medicare doesn’t cover the kind of long-term daily care, whether in the home or in a full-time nursing facility, that millions of elderly Americans require.

For that, you either pay out-of-pocket or you spend down your assets until you have less than $2,000 in assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. Remember that Medicaid provides health care, including home health care, to more than 80 million low-income Americans.

And even if you qualify, the waiting list for home care assistance for those on Medicaid tops 800,000 people and has an average wait time of more than three years.

Here is a snapshot of how long-term care is paid for in the US:

Governments provide 71.4% of the total. The largest non-government source is people who pay out-of-pocket, and private insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. More from the NYT:

“The boomer generation is jogging and cycling into retirement, equipped with hip and knee replacements that have slowed their aging. And they are loath to enter the institutional setting of a nursing home. But they face major expenses for the in-between years: falling along a spectrum between good health and needing round-the-clock care in a nursing home.”

That has led them to enter assisted-living centers run by for-profit companies and private equity funds. The NYT says that about 850,000 people aged 65 or older now live in these facilities and when in them,  they are largely ineligible for federal funds. Some facilities provide only basics like help getting dressed and taking medication while others offer luxury amenities like day trips, gourmet meals, and spas.

In either case, the bills can be staggering. More:

“Half of the nation’s assisted-living facilities cost at least $54,000 a year, according to Genworth, a long-term care insurer. That rises substantially in many metropolitan areas with lofty real estate prices. Specialized settings, like locked memory care units for those with dementia, can cost twice as much.”

Home care is costly, too. According to Genworth, agencies charge about $27 an hour for a home health aide. Hiring someone who spends six or seven hours a day cleaning and helping an older person get out of bed or take medications can add up to $60,000 a year.

It’s worse for people with dementia because they need more services. The number who are developing dementia has soared, as have their needs. Five million to seven million Americans over age 65 have dementia, and that’s expected to grow to nearly 12 million by 2040.

The financial threat posed by dementia also weighs heavily on adult children who in many cases become guardians of aged parents. The Times included this chart:

The reality is that families go broke either caring for, or finding care for their loved ones. The alternative: Women in the family give up their lives and jobs to care for their family members instead, which worsens the gender wage gap.

The NYT article makes it clear that older Americans receive far less government support than their peers in other countries. The “why” question is easily answered: It’s a combination of the concerted effort for any public support to be demonized as “welfare”. It’s also partly the result of our failed experiment with long term care insurance. The politicians’ idea was that “the market” would take care of it, so government help for retirees could be limited to Medicaid-paid nursing homes.

But, the LTC insurance industry has largely imploded. Insurers had little experience with the product and grossly overestimated the lapse rates. If a policyholder stops paying, the insurer gets to keep the money and use it to provide services to everyone remaining in the pool. The surprise was that very few people stopped paying. A second miscalculation was that people who held these policies were living longer than forecasted. Longer life equaled higher and larger payouts (insurers also benefit when customers die before they’ve used up all the policy benefits).

A final factor is the rising levels of dementia described above.

And since demand for support outside of family members exceeds the supply of beds, nursing homes and assisted living facilities that aren’t terrible want residents to join during the independent living phase (which requires very little care, so those fees subsidize intensive nursing home care). Many of these facilities require a $400,000-$500,000 buy-in, which may not be refundable at death, even if the resident is current on their monthly fees.

There’s got to be a better way. Medicaid can’t be the only option to pay for LTC. Congress needs to establish a better system for middle-class Americans to finance LTC.

How we handle the growing costs of long-term care is just another reminder that we get LITTLE for our tax dollars beyond a giant military. Americans are responsible for their own medical care, childcare, college tuition, retirement and nursing home care. Some or all of which are provided in other rich countries.

This is a loudly ticking time bomb, and the demographics of the problem won’t change for decades. And yet, the Republicans seem bent on making it worse. They’re actively trying to bring about their dream of privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

Wake up America! We have real problems to solve.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Why People Say The Economy Is Terrible When It Isn’t

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, Thumpertown Beach, Eastham, MA – November 2023 iPhone photo by friend of the blog, KO.

We keep looking for good news that will buoy Biden’s polling numbers, and on Tuesday we learned that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was flat in October. From Axios:

“Overall prices rose 3.2% in the 12 months through October, slowing from the 3.7% in September and well-below the peak levels reached last year. Core CPI rose 4%, compared to 4.1% the prior month.”

Among the good news was that last month, prices for gasoline and used cars and trucks fell outright, helping cool over inflation. Meanwhile, shelter costs rose at a much slower pace last month, possibly signaling that inflation could be ending in the next few months.

That gave investors reason to pile back into the stock market, since it may be a sign that the Fed won’t continue to raise interest rates.

But as always, analysis of the economic news could show why Biden polls so badly on the economy, and in particular why he hasn’t consolidated support among younger voters. Let’s take a different look at how some important economic indicators have performed under Biden.

From the Bonddad Blog:

“Below is a graph in which I compare average hourly earnings (nominal, not real) for non-supervisory workers (in red) vs. house prices (dark blue) and mortgage payments (light blue).”

It is important to note that Bonddad has set all of the values to 100 as of January 2021 so that we’re looking only at what has happened during Biden’s Administration. Bonddad compares the changes in average hourly earnings to the rate of fixed price mortgages and the price of homes. These are nominal rates:

Average wages have increased 16% since Biden took office, but existing house prices have increased by 32%, and monthly mortgage payments for new buyers have increased 279% (!), from roughly 3% to roughly 8%. Housing is close to unaffordable for many in America.

Turning to cars, new car prices have increased by 20%, and used car prices by 23%, compared to that 16% for wages. And new car loan payments (dotted line below) have increased almost 70% (from about 5% to 8.3%):

Houses and cars are the two biggest purchases that most average people make. And sorry to say, affording them has gotten much harder since Biden took office.

Finally, let’s look at the cost of two things people see every day: groceries and gas. First, grocery prices are up 29% since Biden took office in January 2021 (again, vs. 16% for average wages):

And gas prices, although they have come back down recently, are still up 55% since January 2021:

Looking at the economic data this way, would you be more likely to vote for or against Biden? This is a big Biden problem with voters who live paycheck to paycheck.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of viewing the Biden economic performance like Bonddad does above. Much of the blame for these specific price increases belongs to corporations who took advantage of the breakdown in the global supply chain to raise their prices. Some belongs to the Biden administration’s pumping money into the economy.

Bonddad provides a ton of perspective regarding how the Democrats shouldn’t be talking to voters about how fantastic the economy has become under Biden. Dems can’t simply talk about the aggregate economic numbers, since many will not fully believe them.

At the risk of piling on, Wrongo recently saw this October Experian survey which asked:

“I suffer or have suffered from financial trauma”

A staggering 68% of US adults replied that they had. You can view the survey here. The stress was felt more strongly by younger generations, namely Gen Z adults and millennials, with 73% of Gen Z’ers and 77% of millennials experiencing negative thoughts and/or anxiety about money.

The idea of “financial trauma” goes beyond mere stress. America’s seeing multiple social crises afflict it. Friendships are cratering, loneliness is soaring, deaths of despair are skyrocketing. Half of American young people say they feel “persistently hopeless.”

Now tie this to how the majority of voters are saying that America is on the wrong track. The prevailing attitude in America is that our systems are rigged against working people. If you work hard, play by the rules, try to be an honest, decent and productive person, but the reward is that you get financially, socially, emotionally traumatized, well, maybe you’d be pessimistic, too.

The result is that most Americans feel they are living precarious lives. When asked, they say they need north of $230K to feel “comfortable” while the average yearly income for a full-time worker is about $75,000 today. That means feeling stable and secure is completely out of reach for the vast majority of Americans.

Most of this happened over time and surely wasn’t caused by Biden, or the Democrats. And little of it can be fixed by him.

There’s some good news in the fact that history shows us that voters generally focus on how the economy has performed during the last 6 to 9 months before the election. In 2012, the economy improved a lot, and when the unemployment rate finally fell below 8% one month before the election, it helped Obama to get reelected.

On the flip side, the economy was weakening as we closed in on the presidential election in 2016. GDP growth and wage and job gains were weak. Strong stock market gains were a positive. Adding the pluses and minuses suggested that the economy was weak, and the insurgent Trump won the election.

Better news on inflation in 2024, particularly for groceries and gas, will mean Biden’s polling on the economy will be much better.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Reconsidering US Blanket Support For Israel

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Outer Banks, NC – November 2023 photo by Stephen P. Szymanski

Sometimes a friend, a family member or a neighbor asks you to help them solve a problem. You go along, thinking that you’ll be able to help out, only to suddenly find you’re deeply involved in something that could easily become either a reputation killer, or possibly even life-threatening to you.

And after five weeks of intense bombing, this is where America sits with the Israel/Hamas war. Our friend has caused us to get badly stuck in something and it’s become very difficult to see how to get out of it.

First, all right-minded people should agree that what Hamas did on Oct. 7 was a war crime. And the taking of non-combatant Israeli hostages is also a violation of international law, as is Hamas using Palestinians as human shields.

Second, it is possible to be committed to Israel and to its right to defend itself while at the same time being critical of its response in Gaza and sympathetic to the Palestinian’s plight.

Third, (and what is the focus of this column), is how Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has become close to violating the rules of war. Israel has launched near-continuous airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. According to Barron’s since the onset of the war, Israeli attacks on targets within Gaza have destroyed or damaged 45% of all housing units in the Palestinian territory.

In addition, the Times of Israel acknowledges that a lot of Gazans have died since the October 7 terrorist attacks. It cites the “Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza,” while arguing that the numbers cannot be confirmed and likely include Hamas fighters and victims of misfired Hamas rockets. They still put the number of dead north of 11,000. But there’s also allegedly 26,000 who have been injured and more than 3,000 that are missing. That adds up to 40,000.

The CIA estimates that Gaza began 2023 with a population of 2,098,389, so the total casualties (including the missing) in Gaza are about 2% of the population. And nearly a million people have had their homes damaged or destroyed so far. And the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates that 70% have been displaced from their homes.

The systematic bombardment of housing and infrastructure is prohibited under international law. You can’t destroy 45% of the housing units of a population of 2 million people in five weeks and argue that you are doing all you can to avoid harming civilians.

Indiscriminate bombing of cities became an issue before WWII. Concern about “ruthless bombing of civilians” began with the Japanese bombing of Shanghai in 1932, and the bombing of Barcelona and Guernica in Spain by Italian and German fascists in 1937-38.

An important review of the historical background to the law against bombing cities is in the late Daniel Ellsworth’s excellent 2017 book, “The Doomsday Machine” (TDM). Ellsworth says that the need for rule-making became clear after the German Blitz of London in 1940. That led to the US and Britain secretly adopting Hitler’s tactics. The actions of the three belligerents obliterated the distinction between bombing combatants and civilians for the rest of WWII.

Citizens in the opponent’s country were considered legitimate targets because they were contributing in some way to their country’s war effort. This led to the moral justification that it was better to kill civilians in order to get the war over quickly. After that, bomber attacks exclusively aimed at exterminating German population centers was accepted by Churchill: (TDM, p.239)

“This is the way to pay them back; it’s legitimate for us to do so, and in fact it’s virtually obligatory for us to do so….”

The near-exact words were spoken by Biden, Blinken and Netanyahu after Oct. 7. But even in WWII, there wasn’t true proportionality. From TDM: (pg. 245)

“For every ton of bombs dropped on England in the nine months of the Blitz, England and the US…dropped a hundred tons of bombs on German cities…”

And more than 500,000 Germans were killed.

In 1949, a series of treaties governing the laws of war were adopted. The Geneva Conventions and specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention attempted to create legal defenses for civilians in war, but it wasn’t explicit about bombardment.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack on civilians, even if the area contained military targets. But Protocol I also says that locating military objectives near civilians “shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians“.

This has always been honored in the breach.

Aerial operations are supposed to comply with the principles of: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality.  An attack or action must be intended to aid the military defeat of the enemy. It must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. But proportionality doesn’t hinge only on absolute casualty counts but on how harm to civilian lives and infrastructure is weighed against expected military gains.

That means theoretically, a lot of suffering is permissible.

Under the law of war, Israel’s proportionality calculation must take account of the civilian casualties its air strikes and ground invasion are causing. But Israel has in the past interpreted the rules to exclude damage to apartment buildings if terrorists occupy them.

Israel and America also believe that civilians who voluntarily serve as human shields are participants, not bystanders. But, how to tell the difference? Israeli officials say they have no choice: Hamas fighters are embedded within Gaza’s population and store weapons in and under civilian sites. They also say it’s impossible to defeat its enemy without killing innocents — a lesson that Americans learned at Hiroshima, Falluja and Mosul.

The NYT reports that during Blinken’s visits to Israel after Oct. 7, Israeli officials privately invoked the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They quoted Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman:

“In any combat situation, like when the US was leading a coalition to get ISIS out of Mosul, there were civilian casualties….[and] that Israel’s “ratio” of Hamas fighters to civilians killed “compares very well to NATO and other Western forces” in past military campaigns”.

When all you have for an argument is that your friend has done worse, you’re in serious trouble. Regev’s statement is also impossible to verify. US military officials have discussed the lessons learned from the battles in Iraq and in Raqqa, (the ISIS headquarters in Syria) with Israel.

Israel isn’t exempt from learning from the past and applying the lessons to their current urban warfare. And this is coming from an ally that receives $ billions in US aid every year. Israel is obviously willing to use any justification to continue its destruction in Gaza.

It’s clear that Israel is following a deliberate policy of wrecking Gaza’s infrastructure and buildings. Netanyahu said on October 7 that the IDF would turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble.” On October 10, Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, the Israeli Army’s coordinator of government activities in the territories, stated  “There will be no electricity and no water. There will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”

That gives context to the fact that almost half of the housing in Gaza has been damaged or destroyed since October 7.

Gaza is now well beyond a long and expensive reconstruction process. It’s approaching the point where Gaza is becoming a place where human beings will find it difficult to exist. It’s true that Hamas is also culpable; they’ve brought this upon their own people. They continue to hold the hostages, and that provides Israel with justification for fighting in the heart of Gaza, including near its hospitals.

If Hamas cared about their own people, they would do something to stop it.

The point is that these disproportionate attacks should make it clear that the US needs to find a way to stop blindly taking Israel’s side. We should not be making excuses for Israel’s targeting of civilian populations. Figuring out what we should be doing is urgent, since our current posture isn’t benefiting the US, while it is benefiting our many adversaries in the ME.

The world thinks that the US has leverage over Israel, but as this war shows, we do not. We’re joined at the hip, and no other two countries have had a closer relationship. And when the war broke out on October 7, Biden made it very clear we would give Israel whatever aid it needed, that we would support Israel to the hilt. And we’ve done that.

But, Israel rebuffed Biden’s efforts to talk Israel into arranging “humanitarian pauses” until world opinion started to turn against Netanyahu. CNN and others reported that Israel has finally agreed to move forward with four-hour pauses of military operations in Northern Gaza. We’ll see how that goes.

But should America sacrifice any more of what shreds remain of our moral standing in the world to cooperate with Israel in what seems about to become massive civilian slaughter? Even if Israel’s war efforts are justifiable, their actions are making Gaza uninhabitable.

And when the smoke clears, and much of Gaza’s population has moved south, will Israel allow them return to sit amongst the rubble that remains?

Finally, Israel may be doing exactly what Hamas hoped. It is radicalizing many Palestinians. It isn’t difficult to imagine that if you lived in Gaza and saw Israel’s bombs kill most of your family, you might be willing to walk a bomb into a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv after a ceasefire. If you’re going to live like a dog for the rest of your life, at least you could gain a modicum of revenge by taking a few Israelis along with you.

Time to wake up America! Israel is telling the world that it will stop at nothing to re-establish the security of its borders, even down to the last Palestinian. While the IDF tells us it is following the laws of war, Netanyahu is showing us that his strategy is to make his Middle East adversaries think that no one can out crazy Israel. Israel’s willing to do this even if it has to defy the rest of the world and even if it doesn’t have a plan for returning Gaza to the Palestinians on the morning after the war.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to U2’s 2001 hit “Stuck In A Moment That You Can’t Get Out Of”. Bono wrote the lyrics about the suicide of his close friend Michael Hutchence, lead singer of the band INXS. The song is an argument against suicide in which Bono tries to convince Hutchence of the act’s foolishness.

We also should see the foolishness of total war even against a terrible enemy. It could turn out to be suicide:

(This is Wrongo’s longest column ever. If you’ve read this far, thank you for your interest!)

Facebooklinkedinrss

Cartoons of the Week

Here’s Wrongo’s choice of the best cartoons of the week:

Bibi’s (and the world’s) problem:

America’s credit rating was downgraded last week:

Trump and NY judge disagree:

The man can’t help overvaluing his assets:

November’s election results cause GOP to re-think:

November’s election results cause GOP to re-think (2):

Facebooklinkedinrss

Hot Takes On the Election

The Daily Escape:

Brant Point Light, Nantucket, MA – November 2023 photo by Ken Grille Photography

Let’s look at the election: You probably know that the Dems had a very good night. If polls and pundits didn’t exist, the narrative would be about how Republicans are in total disarray after six consecutive years of election losses and embarrassing nonperformance. That’s reality.

Add this from Rick Wilson:

“Joe Biden is old. Own it. I’ll take old and accomplished over old and evil every time. I don’t pity Joe Biden because he’s old. I honor him for still doing the work that has broken younger and stronger men…..For me, he is still the candidate.

He is still the man we need as President, taking on the fight to preserve America at home and abroad and taking on the world with faint-hearted support from his own party and an avalanche of vitriol from the GOP…”

You don’t need Wrongo to tell you who won/lost on Tuesday, but here’s some context: Democrats have won more votes in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections than the GOP, the best popular vote run of any political party in US history.

  • In the last 4 Presidential elections, Democrats have averaged 51% of the vote, their best showing over 4 elections since FDR.
  • Democrats only received more than 50.1% of the vote ONCE from 1948 all the way to 2004. That was in 1964, the year after JFK’s assassination.
  • That Dems have been above 51% in 3 of our last 4 presidential elections is pretty remarkable.
  • In the 2008 race, Obama managed 52.9%
  • In 2012 Obama got 51.1%
  • And in 2020 Biden received 51.3%

The flaw is that with the Electoral College, where you win is more important than how many you win by.

Still, Dems continue to outperform expectations. In 2022, the so-called “red wave” year, Democrats gained ground from 2020 in 7 key states: AZ, CO, GA, MI, MN, NH, PA. They picked up 4 state legislative chambers, 2 governorships, and 1 US Senate seat, although they lost the US House.

In 2023, the Dems have outperformed again. From winning big in about 40 special elections earlier this year to winning contested elections on Tuesday in KY, VA, NH, PA and OH, we’ve seen very encouraging results. The Dems also added a new Congressperson in RI, and far Right school board candidates got defeated all over the country.

Also, Democrats elected mayors in five cities in Indiana. And Democrats picked up seats in the New Jersey legislature.

In Texas, the legislature has now defeated Gov. Abbott’s school voucher plan three times this year after building an alliance between Democrats and conservative rural House members who represent small school districts. The Dems adopted “Vouchers Kill Friday Night Lights” as a slogan in those places. In addition, Prop 9, to give retired public school teachers a pay raise, passed yesterday by 86% to 14%, the largest margin of any of the propositions. That shows real enthusiasm in Texas for public schools.

Wrongo is looking forward to how the NYT and CNN can explain that this is actually bad news for Biden. The WaPo, however, has already beaten the Times on the “it’s bad news for Biden” beat: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“As for how much solace this night provides a year before the 2024 election? There’s a real question about whether Republicans just don’t turn out when Trump isn’t on the ballot. Beshear was an incumbent. Virginia leans blue. And even if Democrats as a whole are well-poised, that doesn’t necessarily mean Biden, with his various liabilities, will be able to take advantage.”

But looking at the big picture, does it make sense after everything we’ve seen in this week’s elections that Trump is going to have his best election ever in 2024 by doing better than any Republican since GHW Bush in 1988?

What series of events do the pollsters think will cause that to happen? Can the GOP in a presidential election year get the turnout they’d need to cause that to happen? Wouldn’t that mean polls and pundits have to forecast yet another red wave like they forecasted in 2022, which didn’t materialize then, but will for certain materialize now?

Or are we supposed to think that 2024 is going to see a huge wave of pro-Trump “young” voters along with pro-Trump “black” voters who just didn’t show up in this week’s election?

Right now, nothing is at stake, and nothing will be at stake politically until 11 months from now. At that point, people who are polled today will have to make a choice. Until then they are free to be annoyed at Biden or anyone else. But when the implications of casting their ballots are clear, it will be a different story.

But until then, don’t expect the media to abandon its hyping of the “Biden in trouble” narrative.

The pundits are quick to report and slow to learn.

Facebooklinkedinrss