insights and analytics to build an economy that works for all

Author: Patrick Hill Page 17 of 18

GOP Administration Unreality and Policies Are Creating an Authoritarian Executive Branch – Dangerous to Our Democracy and Economy

(Editor Note: this is the fifth post in a series examining the policies of the new GOP administration)

“How will what confusion takes for truth
In any sense be different from a mirage
Things, then bodied forth by magic spells,
And that which is displayed by dint of causes,
Whence have these arisen? We should ask ;
And where they go to, we should examine!”

Shantideva – 700 AD

The Story:

The GOP White House is employing campaign tactics of intimidation, dis-information, half-truths, bullying, scapegoating and chaos to govern the country.  Democratic governing is different.  Governing requires thoughtful leadership, an ability to build consensus to formulate policies and lead large bureaucracies. Plus, we live in a tightly integrated global economy built over the past 70 years where any broken economic link will unleash a negative domino effect worldwide and back to us.

The administration’s stream of falsehoods creates a world of unreality to make their policies look like they are fixing problems which in reality don’t exist.  The White House is trying to convince us that their delusional world is real with a constant stream of falsehoods including:

POTUS 45 actually won the popular vote because 2.9 million votes in California were fraudulent votes by illegal immigrants (no evidence presented for this allegation)

Millions of people attended his inauguration more than Obama (photos provide evidence the crowd was much smaller)

Buses of liberals were sent from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to tip the vote (no evidence presented)

Immigrants are taking US worker jobs (in fact immigrants are 2x more likely to be entrepreneurs starting companies and creating jobs for US workers, plus immigrants are the fastest growing segment of our labor force)

The main reason manufacturing jobs were lost was companies moved these jobs overseas (research shows that 88% of all manufacturing jobs over the past 10 years were lost due to automation)

Old manufacturing jobs can be brought back by just browbeating companies to bring them back (jobs are automated overseas too, it is highly unlikely they will brought back – it is too expensive a transition)

All Muslims are bad people because a few terrorists are if this faith, and need to be monitored and barred from entering the country (Muslims are good citizens, only a very few extremists are terrorists – not more so than another other religious or racial group)

The economy was a mess when POTUS got it (GDP at 2.1%, unemployment at 4.8%, unemployment claims at lowest rate in 8 years, good but still highest level of income inequality since the 1980s)

The unemployment rate is 46% (not even when discouraged workers and those who have quit looking for work are added in is about 9%)

Most refugees are terrorists, and will harm us (no evidence for this allegation)

Vaccines cause autism (only one study proposed this link, which has been debunked by many scientific papers from recognized medical researchers since)

The list goes on as the Washington Post counts 132 false or misleading claims in the first 33 days of the presidency.  Where did all this disinformation come from?  Our President does very little reading but likes to get his news from television, social media and blogs – like Infowars. Infowars is growing fast from just a handful of staff two years ago to 50 – 75 people today. Quantcast in January reported, Infowars had 8.7 million global visitors with 50 million page views.  Ad revenue is growing from water purification companies, foods supplement firms and virility enhancer promoters. The ultra-right blog is edited by Alex Jones, who is a conspiracy theorizing, provocateur who in the past threw out allegations like:  9/11 was an inside job, the Sandy Hook shooting was a ‘fake’ and in 2015 said mainstream media were the ‘enemy of the people’.

So it was not a surprise last week when POTUS tweeted: “ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and the New York Times were the enemy of the American people”.  Carl Bernstein, who helped break the Nixon Watergate story at the Washington Post, warned: “Trump’s attacks on the American press as ‘enemies of the American people’ are more treacherous than Richard Nixon’s attacks on the press. There is no civic consensus in this country like there was at the time of Watergate about acceptable presidential conduct. Trump is out there on his own, leading a demagogic attack on the institutions of free democracy. We are into terrible authoritarian tendencies.”

Wake up America thus is a fight for our democracy! This admin does not want a democracy for all, only a government for the elite. The oligarchy has now placed their leaders in charge of Executive branch departments and is determined establish rules to keep them in power for years to come.

The oligarchy has embraced falsehoods and unreality as tools for obtaining and maintaining power.  This demagogic behavior creates a dangerous situation where credibility will be crucial to managing a crisis requiring public support.   Eliot Cohen, a senior State Department official under President Bush and a participant of his National Security Council, declares “No matter how clever they think it is to attack the very notion of truth itself, a time will come when they want people to give the president some kind of credit for being truthful when the evidence is not in front of us, that they will not get.”

The Solution:

We can’t treat this situation like business as usual for the Democratic Party.  We need to setup an opposition shadow government and cabinet. The British have a long history using this style of opposition – we can learn from their approach. We need to be on the mainstream media, blog sites and social media with alternatives to the demagogic attacks being launched every day.  We need to drive the narrative on where our country is today and the real problems it faces with solutions that work for all. The Progressive Platform that Democrats adopted for the 2016 Presidential election is a good place to start, with updates focused on building a jobs economy for upset inland voters who feel the party left them out of the plan. We need to bring together key leaders, workers, researchers and political leaders into a series of regional jobs summits.  Define solutions then go on the campaign trail to win support for those regional job plans. We need to be building coalitions with independents and the Trump Regrets voters.  We need to connect all the resistance and progressive positive energy into political power. Whatever we focus on gets bigger to turn the tide and win majorities again!

Finally it helps to step back a moment, maybe we start by agreeing on the weather:

 

(Editor Note: references for this post are in the Research tab – under GOP Unreality)

 

Fear Policies Will Result in Severe Economic Damage – Let’s Get the Economy On Track

(Editor Note: this is the fourth post in a series examining the policies of the new GOP administration)

The View:

The unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban institutionalizes fear as a policy.  The use of fear as a governing instrument is evident in other ways as well. POTUS 45 is managing government staffs, tariffs, Mexican trade, picking favorites, and the repeal of Obamacare by manipulating people’s fears. The solution is to end the Muslim ban, and fight back on all these offensives being launched by the White House with initiatives based on building bridges, enabling job development and implementing smart win-win trade programs.

The Story:

On the evening of January 27, 2017 the wife of a Muslim ban detainee shared with an interviewer why she and her husband wanted to come to America:

“We wanted to come to America because we would be welcome, its big, and safe country…now I don’t know anymore.”

We are a country of trust, honesty, respect and equal opportunities for all, regardless of religion, sex, race or national origin.

The unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban institutionalizes fear as a policy. Making the country safe is the reason offered for the ban.  Yet, no terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11 have been caused by terrorists who immigrated into the country.  The Cato Institute estimates there is a 1 in 3.6 billion chance that a refugee turned terrorist will cause a loss of life. The ban has a huge impact on the lives of immigrant families, friends and business colleagues in the US as well.  The Washington Post analyzed State Department immigration data from 2015, and identified 90,000 people with immigrant or non-immigrant visas from the seven countries the ban covers. If the impact on immigrant relationships in the US are considered, hundreds of thousands are affected.

Already the ban has caused widespread anger, broken families and damage to economic links.  There are 15,000 students, mostly Iranian that are affected by the ban.  Many are graduate students and professors, some working on disease research helping Americans at labs like the Harvard Medical Center diabetes research center where Iranian Prof. Thomas Michel lost his visa last weekend.  Scholars say that overseas colleagues are outraged by the ban, and have concerns about attending a conference in the US.  As a result conferences are being scheduled outside the US.

Responses of some countries around the world are to ban or severely limit the visits of US citizens to their countries while others are threatening boycotts of American goods.  Iran has announced that it was taking ‘reciprocal actions’ to ban US citizens from entering its country.  Silicon Valley companies like Google and Facebook are trying to bring back employees stranded around the world.  Businessmen working on deals in the US are cancelling trips for fear of not being able to return to their native country. Immigrants are the foundation of our growth economy, where 25 % of new firms are started by immigrants yet are only 15 % of the labor force. Most new jobs in our economy are generated by small firms, and foreign born workers are found in 25 % of new companies.  Foreign born workers boost our labor participation rate by 2 times lifting our production of goods and services. Cities like Troy, Michigan and Columbus, Ohio have welcomed Syrian refugees boosting their economies where 11 % of Syrians own their own businesses versus 3 % native born. In Silicon Valley, the CEOs of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Airbnb, Netflix and Tesla have denounced the Muslim ban saying it would ‘wreak havoc’ on their businesses.  Yesterday, 2000 Google employees staged a walkout to protest the ban, adding to the protests at airports nationwide.  Venture capital firms are making more investments in places like Canada that have more accommodating visa policies for workers.  Apple, Facebook, Google and Cisco all have offices in Canada.  Several firms plan to increases hiring offshore because of the ban. To learn more please read our blog Immigrants Live in Fear of Mass Deportations, that provides examples of key immigrant contributions to the US economy.

The ban is rooted in nationalism and its corollary – protectionism. Protectionists say, ‘keep out foreigners who may do us harm or hurt our economy’. The ban combined with the administration’s proposed trade tariff fit this protectionist position. Protectionism has been tried in the past and led to severe economic isolation and depression in the 1930s, and eventually to World World II. From history we know that fear take over in 1930, when protectionism was widespread and other countries were seen as the villain.  The Smoot-Hawley Act was passed in 1930 leveling tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.  Other countries retaliated including Canada who imposed tariffs on 30 % of the goods imported from the United States.  Exports by US companies dropped 61 % by 1933 at the height of the Great Depression.  Implementing protectionist policies will lead to severe world-wide economic loses and setup a volatile international environment possibly leading to new wars.  Fifty years of alliances, trade pacts and integration of economies has led to relative peace and prosperity for most countries. Let’s learn from the bold post-WWII global economic work of world leaders.

The present administration has launched a protectionist offensive targeting Mexico. In our January 27th blog, Threatening Mexico Will Lead to Loss of American Jobs describes what happened with the recent 13 % drop in the Mexican Peso and 20 % drop in their stock market.  The drop in the peso will make American products will more expensive for Mexicans – a major issue when Mexico receives 50 % of it gasoline from the US.  The use of cyber bombs in the form of tweets by POTUS45 has resulted in economic damage already.  Workers expecting new jobs at car plants that were cancelled see those jobs evaporating, and the price of gasoline has soared by 20 %. A planned meeting of the two countries has been cancelled and extreme uncertainty exists about the trade relationship worth $500 billion a year.

Picking favorites that serve the administration is another fear and control tactic.  When Carrier Industries announced keeping jobs in Indiana, they received state subsidies and federal tax breaks – what about Carrier’s competitors did they receive the same breaks?  No.  This is not an even playing field to build a fair innovative economy.  Sending cyber bombs to other industries is distorting careful management decision making designed to optimize the cash flow and profits of the company.  We are all for keeping jobs in the US, through incentives and taxes but in an equitable way for all companies in a particular industry sector. This approach has another damaging element:  playing favorites centralizes control of the economy in the White House, where they cannot possibly know the optimal approach to run a company or sector. Modern management approaches that have proven effective are to give as much authority as possible to the lower ranks of the corporation closest to the customer with autonomy to respond to local needs.

The administration’s centralized authority management style is being used with government agencies as well. NASA has received an edict from the administration last week that from now on ‘the agency will be run like a business from the White House’.  Really, does the White House know how to run a sophisticated, complex, science based agency?  We don’t think so.  Plus, this dictatorial style of management has proven to be ineffective, resulting in poor quality of products and services. Many employees are leaving the agency causing a great loss of innovative ideas for the country and US businesses. This past weekend, fear has been used by the White House at the State department where over 1000 department employees used a Dissent Channel to protest the Muslim ban.  The administration response was ‘if you don’t like the policy then leave’.  Or the implication otherwise is we will fire you (where the Holman law was recently passed by the House to fire any federal employee at will).  The Dissent Channel was setup as an anonymous way for employees to express their concern to State Department leaders on policies they disagree with.  This communication offered a good way for differing ideas to be offered without fear of retribution.  This intimidation based environment on the international front will mean that companies dealing with US partners will not be sure what to expect from a diplomatic department run by autocrats ensuring their favorites win in business deals.

Denying climate change is founded in fear of job losses.  If climate change is true, and carbon emissions are contributing in a significant way then coal burning and fossil fuel use must be reduced – therefore causing job losses.  Job losses are a legitimate concern. However, the administration using this fear to deny the evidence supported by 97 % of the scientific community is not helpful in formulating a solution.  All people will be severely impacted by a warmer climate that causes significant environment and health problems.  We need to recognize the truth in climate change and work together to ensure that there are jobs for those impacted the most by shifts in carbon based industries.

Fear is evident in the non-disclosure of his businesses by POTUS 45.  All modern day presidents have disclosed their tax returns.  Through disclosure the people will know where there are conflicts of interest that maybe damaging to our interests or put government staff in jeopardy. Our blog Investigate Possible POTUS Violation of the Emolument Clause offers more insights on this issue. The core feeling is fear of the people finding out how he is running and operating his businesses.  Yet, transparency leads to honesty and trust.  Trust is a better way to govern than creating distrust and uncertainty. The president has wide ranging world-wide business interests so we need to know when his government dealings could have a negative impact on competitors.  He has already played favorites, so we need to watch for conflicts of interest or possible economic extortion by governments favoring their businesses.

When POTUS 45 fired the Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates yesterday, the clear message was that fear, policy and loyalty are above constitutional law. When Yates was confirmed in 2015, Sen Jeff Sessions asked her if she should say no to a presidential order if it were unconstitutional. She replied that yes she would say no as an advisor to the president.  Using the word ‘betrayal’ in her firing letter showed a loyalty edge and lack of respect for her expertise and service to the country.   The AG firing sends a message that the law is what he says it is for his own purposes. To those that don’t do what he wants they should fear reprisals.  He does not seem to respect the constitution as a compact between the people and their leaders. The compact basically says that if the president acts within its provisions the people will support him and vice versa. When random interpretations are promoted, the people have no yardstick to evaluate the actions of their leader. Arbitrary interpretation of the law has economic consequences; if the US government can disobey its own laws at anytime, how can a business feel comfortable making agreements with the US government or companies supported by US law?

The GOP administration proposal to repeal Obamacare is rooted in fears of the Elite of losing health care or degraded quality in services.  The thinking goes ‘If we have to share healthcare resources, doctors, hospitals, medicines and expertise with all people, we will have less’.  They view healthcare resource distribution as a zero sum game. That’s why proposals from the GOP are for ‘access to health care’ not ‘providing healthcare’.  In all modern countries except the US, quality healthcare is a right. For developed countries this policy makes sense. Healthier people will be happier, more productive, live longer and will enjoy a better economy.

The use of institutionalized fear via policies must end, now!

Turning now to solutions, from a tweet in response to the Muslim Ban:

“What’s wrong with America, can be fixed by what’s right with America.”

The ‘light on the hill’ that this country represents to the world got a lot dimmer last Friday night, but it is still flickering.  The spontaneous airport protests and volunteer lawyers swooping in to help victimized detainees is a testament to the people’s power. Let’s commit to making the light on the hill burn brighter than ever for all.

The Solution:

  1. End the Muslim Ban immediately, focus on welcoming immigrants, support their contributions to our economy to boost our labor participation rate and GDP
  2. Use modern management-by-objectives techniques to manage the federal government and push authority to the lowest levels in agencies to maximize efficiency and results.
  3. Use scientific evidence to make fact based decisions and solutions
  4. Use win-win smart partnership agreements with our planet neighbors
  5. Ensure that all Americans have good health care
  6. Free public college level education
  7. Fund public infrastructure investments paid by corporation taxes paying their fair share
  8. Deploy national innovative job development zones based on the Silicon Valley model
  9. Develop a jobs policy acknowledging automation and creating complementary jobs in those heavily automated industries

(Editor Note: references for this post are in the Research tab – under Fear Policies)

Threatening Mexico Will Lead to Loss of American Jobs – Let’s Build Bridges Not Walls

(Editor Note: This is the third in a series of posts examining the polices of the new GOP administration.)

The View:

In the past week there has been a series of threatening tweets from POTUS45 to President Nieto telling him that if the trade imbalance is not fixed he will impose a 20 % tariff on all imports from Mexico.  In a vacuum it may seem  like this would save US jobs.  Yet, the facts are that the US depends on Mexico to purchase $235 billion of exports each year. Damaging the Mexican economy will cause a loss of jobs and purchasing capacity by Mexican workers leading the loss of US jobs.  The solution is to tax those actions we don’t want like manufacturing plants and jobs being moved to Mexico and offering incentives to companies to hire and keep workers here for advanced manufacturing and automation.

The Story:

We need a win-win trade relationship with our southern neighbor.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US has dropped to an all-time low of 10.9 million based on an analysis by Robert Warren at the Center for Migration Studies of US Census Bureau data.  Also, his study shows that immigration by Mexicans to the US has dropped by 7 % over the past few years while immigration has increased by 5 % from Central American countries.  Experts believe one factor in the reduction of immigration is the improved Mexican economy providing better wages for Mexican workers. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal a worker describes how his life has changed:

“Alexander Calderón, 46, grew up the son of a farmer in a rural part of the Mexican state of Veracruz. He started working at Metalsa welding frames for Chrysler trucks in 1993, initially earning 600 pesos, or about $194 at the time, per month. He now earns 40,000 pesos, $1,860, per month as a supervisor in the plant’s steel hydroforming division, owns a house in the Monterrey suburb of Guadalupe, and sent his oldest son to study accounting at the state of Nuevo Leon’s public university.

“For me, I really started to notice the development of industries here in the last 15 years as companies from other countries came here. That’s when my salary started to go up,” Mr. Calderón said. “It’s gotten very competitive.”

Mexican workers with good jobs has dramatically reduced their desire to migrate to the US.  Trade reduces crime, and integrates the economies of both countries more closely. For example, before NAFTA cars sold by Mexico had only 5 % US content, today they have 40 %.  When both countries prosper through a productive partnership workers will enjoy a better life. Yes, there has been a loss of US auto industry jobs but a trade war would cost US jobs too.  The Center for Automotive Research estimates that a 35 % tariff on imports would cause a loss of 450,000 car sales, leading to 6700 jobs lost in North America in both the US and Mexico and a loss of 31,000 jobs in US parts supply chain companies.

However, it is estimated that only 18 % of the loss of all US manufacturing jobs has been caused by overseas job placement according to a recent Ball State University study.  82 % of manufacturing job losses are due to automation.  Auto plants in both the US and Mexico are highly automated.

The latest round of tweets between POTUS45 and President Nieto on NAFTA trade has resulted in a standstill and cancellation of their planned meeting next week.  Even though talks are at a standstill the series of US threats has badly damaged the Mexican economy already. As noted in our Economic News section, since November 8th the Mexican Peso has dropped in value against the dollar by 13 % and the Mexican stock market dived by 20 %.

The US exports 50 % of the gasoline that Mexicans purchase. If Mexican companies are hit with a 20 % tariff on exports to the US, Mexican corporate sales to the US will drop.  Mexican firms will be forced to lay off workers. Unemployed Mexican workers will buy less US gasoline. Then, US oil field workers lose their jobs.  Is the tariff policy trading US auto industry jobs for oil worker jobs?

This chart outlines by industry sector the exports and imports between the US and Mexico in 2015 (right click to enlarge the chart under a separate tab):

The largest trade imbalance with Mexico is in auto parts, trucks, buses, cars and crude oil.  The US ships more computer technology, telecom gear, and gasoline to Mexico than we import. Note Mexico is a major oil exporter, shipping oil here for refining into gasoline then piped back to Mexico.  What would a 20 % tariff on Mexican oil do to the US gasoline industry?

Prior to the 1994 NAFTA agreement with Mexico, Mexico ran a trade deficit with the US. Since then Mexican imports to the US have exploded from $65 billion per year to $295 billion in 2016.  While US exports to Mexico have jumped from $68 billion to $235 billion, particularly boosting the economies of the border states like Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Yet, there is a US trade deficit of $60 billion in 2016. What should the solution be to keep companies investing in the US and saving US manufacturing jobs?

The Solution:

While the NAFTA trade agreement should be reviewed for fairness for both countries and workers, in the meantime taxes and incentives are the preferred approach:

  1. Tax companies that move jobs to other countries. For example, a company moves a $1 billion plant with a 1000 workers offshore, they pay a 10 % plant offshore tax or $100M, and $20k per worker or $20M penalty to be used for training and apprenticeship programs in the US. (Tax the action we don’t want.)
  1. Establish worker councils in corporations to make decisions jointly, ensuring apprentice and new job training programs are in place.
  1. Offer incentives to keep plants here including fed, state, and local tax reductions, and training programs implemented in local universities and colleges.
  1. Train US workers on advanced assembly and use of robotics in manufacturing to build increased productivity capability and reduce costs.

Editor Note: References for this article are under the Research tab in US – Mexican Trade Trends.)

 

 

 

 

Investigate Possible POTUS Violation of the Emolument Clause of the Constitution, Next Steps

[Image: The Daily Shot – Wall Street Journal]

The View:

POTUS has not committed to disclosing his federal tax returns, publishing a complete listing of business interests, obtained approval from the Ethics Office for complying with conflict of interest requirement in federal law or the Emolument Clause of the Constitution.  The Solution: He needs to immediately disclose his federal tax returns, put his business investments and company into a blind trust and develop a conflict of interest plan that is approved by the Office of Government Ethics. Today, a suit has been filed by a distinguished team of professors and litigators from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government – CREW in US District Court in New York requiring that POTUS comply with the Emolument Clause of the Constitution.

The Story:

I still remember when I was ten years old, I wasn’t telling my Mom the truth about something. She could tell I was holding back, then sternly instructed: “If you are not doing anything wrong, then you don’t need to lie or cover it up”.  She was right and I learned a valuable lesson.

POTUS45 has decided not to place his private business into a blind trust as the Office of Government Ethics has recommended he do to eliminate all conflict of interest concerns and possible Emolument Clause violations.   Why not?

There are a number reasons why the American people are entitled to have a President (from any party) completely committed to his job, not constantly weighing conflicts of interest and setting himself up for extortion (and thereby threatening US interests):

  1. Full Time Job Commitment – without completely dropping his business interests he is going to be distracted consciously or unconsciously by the interests of his company versus the right policy or action for the American people. The President’s job is the most demanding job in the world, if he is committed to doing it he must sacrifice personal gain for service as Office of Government Ethics Director, Walter Shaub, has noted: “He’s going to be asking his own appointees to make sacrifices. He’s going to be asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives in conflicts around the world. So no, I don’t think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the United States of America.”
  1. Conflicts of Interest – this is a basic business and organizational requirement, that he should never be in a position where his interests are being considering in weighing a course of action. He has properties in many cities in the US and the world, he will be making decisions that will enhance the value of his properties or possibly decrease the value.  For example, he has property in Scotland, a golf course on the beach, meantime the Scottish government decides to enforce shore environmental laws or place windmills out to sea (an idea being discussed now).  He sees this move as reducing the value of his property, so he drops funding to the Scottish government for military training. The point is that he can’t be dealing for his own interests at the same time he negotiating on behalf of our interests.
  1. Foreign Government Extortion – our President has a number of resorts all over the world, in Asia he has partnered with a business man who is running for office and connected to opposition groups to an existing government. Extortion may occur when a foreign government may say: if the US government does not provide funding for a government project, then the government may find the POTUS family owned resort in violation of government taxes owned, food safety violations, or zoning violations.  Even trumped up charges could be used to make our president think twice about doing the right thing for the US, and to possibly punish his partner.  Worse yet, the government may in prison the in-country business partner and make demands of the US government for his release such as a change in policy or to supply military assistance.
  1. Emolument Clause – he has just taken the oath of office declaring that he will ‘uphold the Constitution’ – ok good. The Emolument Clause Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 states: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”  He can’t allow his sons (possibly nepotism law violation) or his businesses to accept remuneration or compensation from any foreign government official or employee – this clause is clear. Randall D. Eliason, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law School, and former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, has observed that the clause is broader than a simple bribery condition, but also requires government officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

These are more than enough logical reasons for the President to place all his properties, investments and businesses into a blind trust – where he has no knowledge of whether his actions are increasing or decreasing their value.

The Solution:

  1. Disclosure of Federal Taxes – we don’t know where all his properties and investments are, under a bi-partisan investigation a subpoena would force disclosure of his business interests. Then, we and government ethics officials would be better informed in monitoring the President.
  1. Bi-partisan Investigation – next his investments need to be investigated for accuracy, possible foreign government links and contract conflicts. The present approach where his sons run his businesses, he pledges to make no new deals and then go back to it after he leaves office is not good enough to meet the ethics office standard.
  1. Ethics Office Plan Approval – he needs to work with the Office of Government Ethics, write up an acceptable plan that is approved by the ethics department. We ask all his appointees to do this, many have complied, Rex Tillerson. cabinet appointee for Secretary of State has worked closely with the ethics office and may lose as much as $ 7M, but he wants to serve the country well.
  1. Lawsuit Against POTUS – The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – CREW filed a civil complaint today in US District Court in Manhattan, finding that POTUS had violated the Emolument Clause of the Constitution. The CREW team includes: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, University of California-Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chermerinsky and Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout, as well as Supreme Court litigator Deepak Gupta.

We the people he serves are looking for leadership on his part to set aside personal wealth and privilege to focus on being our President first, not second.

We deserve nothing less than full impartial commitment to the most important job in our country, otherwise conflicts of interest will dog his administration continuously impacting his ability to govern and lead the free world.

Editor Note: References for this post appear in the Research tab under Emolument Clause & Conflicts of Interest)

Update – Sen. Feinstein Calls Out Trump On China Trademark Approval – Feb 17 2017

“China’s decision to award President Trump with a new trademark allowing him to profit from the use of his name is a clear conflict of interest and deeply troubling,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in a statement. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is.”

Right after this approval he changed his policy moving to the One China Policy – will he stay with this position, or when Taiwan gives him something will he shift to recognizing them?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-china-trademark-dianne-feinstein-235147

 

 

Immigrants Live In Fear Of Mass Deportations, Yet Are Key Contributors To Growing Our Economy

(Editor Note: this is the second of a series reviewing the new GOP administration policies and programs.)

The View:

Immigrants are in constant fear of being deported when they hear of the policy plans for the new GOP administration and cabinet appointees talking about ‘rounding them up like FDR did with the Japanese’ or registering all Muslims.  Yet, immigrants while being 15 % of the work force are 25 % of the entrepreneurs.  Business formation is the number one employment engine in our economy.  Foreign born labor participation far outstrips that of native workers. Plus, Latino immigrants are driving demand for homes and contribute to paying the mortgage. When mass deportations were implemented between 2005 and 2013, foreclosures hurt the local Latino communities harder than other communities.  Researchers Jacob Rugh and Matthew Hall found that 75 % of 1.2 million Latino households had mixed legal status residents.  They would pool financial resources to afford the mortgage, so when an illegal resident was deported the family often lost their home.  The Action: we need to enact programs the ensure that there is an opportunity for them to continue to build businesses in many sectors of our economy, keep families together, speed legal entry for immigrants, develop a path toward legal status for those here and deportation for convicted felons.  Let’s ensure that all US residents have an opportunity to work hard to achieve the American Dream.

The Story:

Recently, the NY Times interviewed a young immigrant entrepreneur who said, “A lot of (professional) people are successful here in the (New York) city, it is because there are immigrants to fill the roles that let them use their time to advance their careers,” Ms. Elizabeth Vilchis said. “If we take that away, the whole thing crashes.” Ms. Vilchis, is an entrepreneur running a food delivery service that caters mostly to New York City professionals who can’t take time to eat away from their desk.

One immigrant entrepreneur said, after the November election that he was “hoarding resources and cash, because I don’t know what happens next.”  Many immigrants have started construction, cleaning services, and restaurant businesses, now they are talking with accountants about the implications of selling their businesses to take profits and be ready to leave at any time.

Thousands of other immigrants are entrepreneurs throughout the US.  Professors Sari Pekkala Kerr from MIT, and William Kerr at the Harvard Business School, found that while immigrants make up 15 % of the labor force they are 25 % of the entrepreneurs in the US. They are inventive too, accounting for 25 % of all patent applications. Immigrants making a growing contribution to the US economy as noted in this chart from the Kerr’s report (right click to enlarge the image in another tab):

immigrant-entrepreneurs-in-us-12-10-16

With new business formation at an all-time low, and business closings surpassing new business formations for the first time 2 years ago – immigrant entrepreneurship is of even greater importance.

Immigrants have a key role to play in our economy, for example in housing.  Last week, Jacob Rugh and Matthew Hall published in the Journal of Sociology the results of their research into the mass deportation of immigrants between 2005 and 2013. About 85 % of those deported were working Latin American men.  They found in predominantly Latino communities the deportation activity by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency increased the foreclosure rate significantly and hurt the overall housing market worse than in other communities during the Great Recession. Prior to the deportation activity the foreclosure rates were similar to non-Latino communities. They found legal and illegal residents were pooling resources to meet the financial needs of their household.  Three quarters of 1.2 million households had at least one undocumented immigrant living in a household of legal residents.  The researchers noted that deportation can increase foreclosure rates in the same way that divorce, or unemployment do in other groups.  Even worse, deportation will likely have the effect of hindering the assimilation of immigrants into American society.  Mr. Rugh noted that from a self-interest perspective, the Latino community is a big part of the future housing market, so people should be interested in fostering the growth of buyers for their homes.

Foreign born workers have a higher labor participation rate than native born workers in our economy as this chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates (right click to enlarge the image in another tab):

foreign-born-labor-participation-higher-than-native-us-12-2-16

Immigrants are crucial to the success of our economy.  We should not be damaging the entrepreneurial engine fueling much of our economic and employment growth. Yet, the new GOP administration seems bent on dramatically reducing the immigrant contribution to the US economy. Cabinet appointees have called for deporting illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrant parents of legal children. The cabinet appointee for Homeland Security has called for ‘some type of registration system for all Muslims’ in this country, which seems like a scheme to track Muslims or as he proposed, “the FDR program of rounding up Japanese nationals is a good model’.

Beyond the civil rights violations of Muslims and many groups singled out by this administration there will be a catastrophic effect on our economy when policies of fear, intimidation and monitoring are implemented.

We need to stand firm for the rights of immigrants and all US residents to ensure there is an opportunity to work hard toward achieving the American Dream.

The Action:

  1. Enact programs that help our economy grow with the help of immigrants for agriculture, hospitality, domestic services, construction, delivery, information technology and other sectors.
  2. Keep families together where there are mixed illegal and legal residents in the home.
  3. Enact legislation that provides a path for becoming a legal resident that requires hard work, commitment, dedication for years of service.
  4. Build programs in immigrant countries to reduce their interest in illegally coming to the US.
  5. Speed legal entry programs, make it easier for immigrants to come to this country for work or family needs.
  6. Focus deportation programs only on those with felony convictions, or terrorists.
  7. Prevent any program of registration or monitoring by religion, race or ethnicity from ever being enacted.

(Editor Note: References for this article are in the Research tab under Immigrant Contributions)

 

Don’t Be Fooled By GOP Initiatives Disguised as ‘Jobs Projects’: Money is Here to Serve Not Rule

481px-john_bauer_-_the_princess_and_the_trolls

(Editor Note:  This is the first of an on-going series reviewing the GOP and President – elect economic programs, their impact on working people and ideas for a progressive response)

The View:

The GOP and President – elect unveiled a proposal for ‘creating millions of jobs’ with a $1 trillion infrastructure project. This initiative is nothing more than a huge tax give away to global corporations, construction companies and gift to private investors.  Over $137 billion dollars in taxes would be lost, critically needed to serve the needs of the working class.  The Action is to write (letter is best) to your congressional representative and senator and let them know that you expect a no vote on this scheme for corporate welfare.

The Story:

The electoral administration has announced a $1 trillion infrastructure project to ‘jump start the economy and create millions of jobs’.  But will it?

Who is helped by this initiative?  This is always the first question to ask.

The initiative is based on private funding of infrastructure projects.  It calls for an 82 % tax credit on the equity invested. The investor is only risking 18 % of his/her principal to gain a forecasted return of at least 10 % to investors – a nice return with interest rates at 2.0 % on 10 yr Treasury bond.  Or compared to the return of workers get on CDs of .01 %.

Another corporate giveaway to construction companies is to tax their profits on these projects at 15 % versus the corporate rate of 35 %.  These companies are already enjoying investment credits, loss carry forwards and other real estate tax incentives.

Yet, an even bigger giveaway to global corporations is to repatriate their unpaid taxes when they bring offshore funds back to the US where they really owe 35 % corporate taxes and use the 82 % tax to offset their corporate tax payments – effectively paying no tax on their offshore funds! As Wilbur Ross, private investor and Prof. Peter Narrvaro of UC Irvine say in their proposal ‘so at the end of the day they (corporations) have an infrastructure equity investment and no tax bill while the US has more and new infrastructure.

Helping corporations to escape their fair share of taxes is ludicrous!  Corporations pay only 1 % of US GDP today compared to 7 % in 1954 says an OMB study.

This is a huge giveaway to tune of $137 billion in tax funds actually needed for student debt relief, job training,  free public college education for all students, tax credits for child care to help families escape poverty or job corps to work on key projects in poverty areas of the country.

This initiative is actually a huge tax cut for corporations packaged as an infrastructure project and sold to the public as a ‘job creator’. The vast majority of public projects do not have cash streams – ie toll roads. So, it is not clear vast number of new jobs will be created from a possible small percentage of ‘cash stream’ projects.

Who wins?  The Elite – major investment companies and corporations, little goes to the working class. 

Yet the working class in this country spends the most number of hours of any developed country trying to escape poverty, noted here by OECD (right click to enlarge):

lower-10-hrs-needed-to-work-out-of-poverty-oecd
We need to be helping families with good jobs, paying enough to support their family life and opportunities for their children. Families are the building blocks of our economy and our country.

We need what Pope Francis calls a ‘moral economy’ that works for all people – that is our yardstick for this new administration

We don’t make America great again by focusing on making the top one tenth of 1 % even richer. The top one tenth 1 % holds as much wealth as the bottom 90 %.  This is the highest concentration of wealth since 1929.  We experienced the worst economic crash in the history of this country then.  Today, we are faced with a similar crisis where millions of dollars are not in the hands of families, students and those building households to purchase appliances, furniture, houses, cars and other goods. Yet, at the same time they are caught in an health care cost squeeze dictated by corporate interests as well.

in 2013, Pope Francis wrote with passion and insight on this topic when he said:

“The current financial crisis originated in a profound human crisis, the denial of the human person… (we have a) dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking in truly human purpose.  Money is here to serve not rule.”

The Action:

  1. Write (a letter is best) to your congressional representative or senator and make the point that you are not taken in by this disguised initiative and you want a No vote if it comes to the floor.

(Editor Note: References appear for this blog in the Research tab under GOP Infrastructure and Pope Francis – Money is Here to Serve.)

Our 45th President Is Not Elected By Popular Will: Let’s Fix The Election Process

suffrage_universel_1848

The View:

Once again our presidential election process failed to give our people a popularly voted president.  Donald Trump received 290 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 228, yet she won the popular vote by 1,575,000 votes.  This situation has caused protests, fear, anxiety and sense of injustice across the country.  The Electoral College was developed by the founders as a way to make the Office of the President a powerful branch of government, not beholding to the majority of representatives in Congress. They developed a state based election system where presidential electors were allocated by state for each senator and congressional representative.  With this election there has been 6 times in the history of this country that a president was elected who did not receive the most popular votes.  This outcome is completely undemocratic, and makes a non-popular voted president illegitimate in the minds of many people.  Alternatives for establishing a popular vote for president require a Constitutional amendment which is extremely difficult to accomplish.  The approach most likely to succeed is to ask state legislatures to follow the lead of Nebraska an Maine and allocate their electors by congressional district with the two senator representatives elected at large.  This congressional district allocation can be accomplished by the state legislatures without a change to the Constitution.  The Action would be be to file suit in federal court finding that the present system violates one man – one vote provision of the Constitution, thereby forcing the states to redistribute their electors by another method preferably by congressional district.  Persuading leading states like California, New York, Illinois, Texas and Florida to do this would likely influence the other states to go along. Finally, a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has gained momentum to have states by law allocate their electors to the national popular vote candidate.

The Story:

This author asked his mother when he turned 18 years old, ‘how do you vote for President?’ she replied, ‘I think of the President like a child with a hammer, how much damage can he do, so I vote for the least damage.”  With that approach the country has just given our 45th President a hammer with a box of toys to break!

Why do we have the Electoral College anyway? The founding fathers had just come from a monarchy based government, so they did not what to repeat a system of a proclaimed leader (everyone wanted George Washington to be President at the time) with the leader appointing the next in succession.  Another approach under consideration was to have a national leader based on representational majority in Parliament.  Yet, they believed in balancing the powers of Congress and the Executive branch.  Plus, the founders were looking for a way to motivate the President for good behavior by allowing a second term.  If the President were elected by Congress it would have to be for one term, or he would become a tool of the majority in Congress. They did not want a direct popular vote because they were concerned that a national constituency could not be developed with so many regions and states likely to have favorite son candidates. James Madison, Constitution Convention recorder and leader, was looking for a compromise because southern states felt they would lose out a national constituency with blacks being 3/5 of a citizen.  So, a compromise was established to have a set of electors voted on by the people in each state based on popular vote. These electors that would then vote in a separate Electoral College vote in December with ballots read in a session of Congress.  If there was a tie 269 – 269 of electors between candidates, then Congress would vote on who would become President.  In our history there have been 5 Presidents who have not won the popular vote but have won by electors.  Our election this past week is the latest example, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 575,000 votes over Donald Trump. Yet she come up short in electoral votes based on state representation, Clinton has 228 to Trump’s 290 (some states still counting).

Why is this a problem?  The popular vote and will of the people is thwarted.   A major issue is that the Electoral College is not one person – one vote as identified in our Constitution for a representative democracy.  A vote in California with 55 electoral votes and 8,458,000 citizen votes means that one electoral vote represents 153,781 citizens.  In Wyoming, with 3 electoral votes and 230,197 citizen votes means that one electoral vote equals 76,732 citizen votes. A voter in Wyoming enjoys twice as powerful citizen/electoral vote than a citizen in California. The balance of power in the Electoral College swings to mostly lower population inland states deciding who our president will be.  In this election inequitable voting power certainly is true when you look at an electoral map (right click on image to enlarge):

electoral-map-for-blog-2016

This voting power inequity creates great frustration and anger. In the last few days, we have seen protests in 37 cities across the country against the president elect due to the injustice of the non-popular vote. All our representative government functions are based on majority vote from local city councils to state legislatures and the US Congress.  It only makes sense to have a popular vote for president in the modern era. With growing economic inequality and divisive politics particularly between inland populations and coastal cities a fair vote for president would go a long way toward building a united country.

The Solution:

Why not just have a direct popular vote?  This would be a good solution except that the Constitution needs to be changed in a two-step process by creating an amendment followed by ratification. The US Congress can create an amendment by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate or two thirds of the state legislatures.  The proposed amendment then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures in a time frame approved by Congress.  This is a long and difficult process as 11,539 amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789 and 27 have become part of the US Constitution.

How about apportioning electors by congressional district?  We already portion congressional districts by population which is updated in each decade by the Census.  This approach provides some equity for citizen to elector representation – though it will not fix the inequality completely due to the two senate electors. Maine and Nebraska apportion their electors by congressional districts today, with their two senatorial electors representing a statewide vote.  This congressional districting would be fair and take care of 80 % of the vote inequity issue. Plus, candidates would need to focus their campaigning on congressional districts not the whole state for a winner take all result. For example, California rarely sees presidential candidates from either party for the presidential race because it has gone for the Democratic candidate in the last 6 elections.

It would be good to have congressional districts mapped by an independent commission as California does to ensure that the district is open to diverse political viewpoints. By establishing congressional districts as the key representative unit with fair boundaries for inclusion of multiple points of view we might see more dialog at the local level.  The increased dialog will induce more consensus building and possibly break the grasp of incumbents who are re-elected 93 % of the time.  State legislatures can decide on their manner of apportioning electors – so we could build a national census to have the states enact changes by the 2020 election.

A popular vote approach campaign is lead by the Democracy for Action (DFA), called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  Whereby, states legislatures would agree to vote their electors for the winner of the popular vote.  This compact would take effect when at least 270 electoral votes would be covered.  To date ten state legislatures have ratified this approach, swing states are reluctant to make the switch, though after the 2016 election there maybe more of a push to make this system happen.

The Action:

  1. File suit in federal court (which would probably go to the Supreme Court) to find that present Electoral College process violated the one man – one vote finding of the Supreme Court for the 2016 election. Winning a suit would force the states to rewrite their present distribution of electors.
  1. Implement a national program to influence state legislatures in the other 48 states (Maine and Nebraska already use congressional districts) to distribute electors by congressional district popular vote. Influence leading states with the most electors to switch to a congressional district approach like California, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.  The other states will follow their lead.
  2. Finish obtaining the support of more states for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for 270 electoral votes. There is a petition being emailed to progressives by DFA, sign and donate to their campaign effort.

(Editor Note: References appear under the Research tab)

Update:   Gerrymandering for Partisanship Found Unconstitutional – November 22, 2016

A Federal Court in Wisconsin has found that GOP gerrymandering of state legislature districts was giving unfair advantage to Republicans over Democrats.  It is the first time in pitched battles over the past 30 years that federal courts have looked at partisanship as a constitutional issue.  The ruling offered a clear mathematical formula for evaluating partisanship, called the efficiency gap model. The model proposed by plaintiffs divides the difference between the two parties wasted votes (beyond those needed by the winning side) and the votes cast by the losing side by the total number of votes.  Zero is the ideal situation.  The GOP had a very high score versus the average, so it was quite evident to the court that an unfair bias was used in drawing district lines. Representation districts are redrawn every 10 years after the Census to ensure each district contains roughly the same number of people based on the one man – one vote decision by the Supreme Court in 1962.   Note we suggested a law suit on very similar grounds in The Action above, this is a good start, now to take this case to the Supreme Court to force state legislatures to redraw districts in a more balanced way. This is crucial to reduce partisanship, open dialog and fairly allocate representation regardless of party.  For more details go to this article in the NY Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Insurers – Your Free Ride Is Over: Time for Single Payer Health Insurance

The View: 

The Health and Human Services administration just announced that the average premium for patients on the health insurance exchanges will increase by 25 % in 2017.  For those covered in employee insurance plans they are being squeezed between stagnant wages and increasing premiums and high deductibles.  The health insurers have a business model that creates profits for them, but creates gaps in coverage (as when a worker is unemployed) with high premiums and high deductibles.  Insurers spend billions of dollars on stock buybacks to drive share prices up to increase executive stock compensation.  Plus, they spend millions on lobbying Congress to keep their business model in place.  These monies could be better spent bringing costs down and reducing premiums.  In the final analysis as a country, we don’t need two accounts payable departments – private and Medicare. Let’s move to one single payer system, though it may take years to implement.  The Action: Cover the remaining 9 million uninsured with a public option on exchanges, end state by state plans and replace them with a national insurance pool of 360 million, create individual health accounts funded by payroll deductions from salaries for workers and for the uninsured federal basic health and drug insurance would be offered, end COBRA accounts by implementing national health insurance accounts available regardless of employment status, transition employer plans over to health accounts over a 4 year period similar to 401k rollovers into IRA accounts, end penalties for not having health insurance, use the Medicare drug formulary for the industry, end stock buy backs, require full disclosure on health and drug pricing.  To implement and guide development of the new health account program we should look at Affordable Care Act exchanges that work like California and those faced with challenges like Oregon.  Plus, let’s enlist our progressive investor partners to build new health insurance business models and organizations necessary to make this transition successful.

The Story:

Last week, this author received in the mail a notice from his drug insurer announcing rates for 2017 – a 38 % increase in a standard medication because it was moved to a non-plan brand tier from a generic (it is still generic) and premium increase of 33 %! Recently, my wife made an inquiry about coverage for one her medications where the insurer said her medication was covered was covered but she would have to pay 100 % of the cost because of the tier it was on. What kind of double talks is this? Related to health care, prior to the Affordable Care Act my son couldn’t afford doctor visits because he didn’t have insurance – he would have to pay $150 for a visit instead of a $10 copay. Fortunately, he didn’t have much income so MediCal helped out.  It seems that most families or someone you may know has had an issue with a health insurer.  Yet, this business model for insurers stays in place. Insurers have designed an inequitable structure to ensure they make money, while those with no insurance or high deductibles are paying exorbitant fees.

How big is the problem with drug and health insurance? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation insurance costs are going up for those under employer sponsored plans too –29 percent of all workers were enrolled in high deductible plans up from 20 percent in 2014. From 2006 to 2016 workers incurred a 58 % increase in premiums for employer sponsored plans. (click on image to enlarge)

increase-in-worker-health-insurance-premiums-kaiser-sep-2016

 

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) corporations can move insurance plan costs over to employees for their health insurance and not be penalized. High deductible plans can cause a barrier to care, because patients looking to reduce costs do not go to their doctor or purchase the medicine they need, resulting in more serious illnesses later. This means that while premium costs maybe held in check, high deductibles are dramatically increasing the costs to patients while middle class worker income has stagnated since the mid 1980s.  Middle class workers and their families are caught in a wage – health cost squeeze, while drug and health care provider executives make 290 % of an average worker income.  The Commonwealth Fund, reports that workers with employer plans spent an average of 6.5 % of their income in 2006 on premium fees and deductibles, this figure soared to 10.5 % by 2015.  The squeeze between wages and health care costs is felt most acutely in those states with lower wages.  For example, in Florida the average worker spent $16,000 in premiums and deductibles per year, in Massachusetts their health costs were $18,000.  Yet, the median income in Florida was $43,401, versus $73,015 in Massachusetts – highlighting the huge squeeze felt in lower income states where wages have not kept up with health costs

Finally, the federal government reports that while another 1 million people will be covered by the public exchanges in 2017 due to the major insurers dropping out, average premiums will be raised by 25 %!  For example, Aetna announced that it was dropping 11 states from its plans due to losses of $430M since January 2014. Aetna wants the game played by its rules.  Last summer, Aetna told the DOJ that it would bow out of state exchanges if it did not approve their merger with Humana, Aetna also spent $1 billion in stock repurchases in 2014 and approximately $750 million in 2015. Anthem has announced that while it is not repurchasing stock now with its pending merger with Cigna, it still has authorized $4.7 billion dollars! Stock repurchases manipulate the stock price (to drive up price); they do not reduce costs, innovate new services, or compensate employees. In 2014, Humana repurchased $500 million in stock driving the price up by one cent over their earnings target of $7.50 per share entitling CEO Bruce Broussard to a $1.68 million bonus.  Middle class workers are caught in squeeze as premiums rise while executives use billions of dollars to increase their compensation that could be used to reduce premium prices.

The success of the public insurance exchanges while contingent on insurer support requires strong state leadership. California supported the public exchange program where 92 % of patients can choose among three or more plans, with increases averaging 15 % for 2017.  Most Covered California plan consumers receive premium assistance and qualify for subsidies.  Other states like Texas, fought the public exchange plan, and did not accept $10 billion in subsidies over 10 years which left many low income Texans without coverage.

The ACA has been a success with 21 million people gaining coverage, while another 9 million remain uninsured, the lowest number on record. Yet, the pricing and coverage model is wholly inadequate for patients to hold premium costs down and health service providers to manage their businesses effectively while ensuring a high quality of health care.

So how does drug and health insurance work?  Drug companies set a price then negotiate an agreement with the health insurer for different tiers of pricing generic (lowest), preferred brand and so forth. The top tier is usually completely uncovered.  The insurers negotiate for rebates and discounts to drive patients to certain drugs that the drug manufacturer wants to increase sales, or where they have the highest profits margins.  Drug prices increased by 12 % last year, however the insurers saw drug costs increasing by only 2.8%, according to IMS Health. The drug store submits a claim under your plan when you want a prescription filled, the price they submit is high, and not what they receive (it looks big to have the consumer think the insurer is paying the drug store a lot) there are rebates and discount lists, then there is the cost to the consumer as a member.  Finally, the plan supposedly pays part of the net amount, but most drug plans make the net figure your out-of-pocket cost.  The pricing structure is completely opaque to the patient.

Health provider costs are negotiated as well.  On an Explanation of Benefits statement the patient sees the amount the service provider charges, which is not the price the insurer pays which is usually a much lower cost reimbursement.  If the patient has no insurance the ‘retail price’ of the service provided is due from the patient. Often these retail costs fall on those patients least able to pay – those with low income or without insurance. Retail costs can be exorbitant for example, an MRI may cost the insurer $1000, while the provider retail cost to the uninsured patient is listed at $10,000.  Incredibly, uninsured patients are forced to pay the most for the health services! There is an obvious message here – ‘we don’t care about uninsured patients and we are going to stick prices to them’.  For most unemployed patients private plans and private plans on the public exchanges have high premiums, high out-of-pocket or high deductibles.  This approach of high premiums, out of pocket and high deductibles don’t work for the consumer!

Insurers have worked hard to keep their business model in place with Congress, Aetna spent over 23 million dollars since 2010 lobbying Congress on legislation that impacted their business, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Aetna employed 37 lobbyists, with 75 % enjoying a revolving door between government positions and lobbying on behalf of Aetna.  The health insurance industry has spent over 61 million dollars in lobbying efforts between 2010 and 2016.  These insurer lobbyists are not representing patients.

When the health insurers; Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Anthem threaten the DOJ with leaving the public exchanges and then leave as they did last month, they are clearly undermining the goals for the ACA. They were upset with DOJ for suing all four firms to stop their planned mergers.  We need an attitude shift here, how can they make insurance work for all of us.

We have come a long way with the ACA and concessions by the insurers, but they continue to focus on the healthiest patients, increases in deductibles, increasing profits and maintaining high executive salaries. This is all at the cost of patients – all citizens have a right to good, high quality healthcare throughout their life.

The Action

The core need is to provide low cost effective health insurance for people, so when illness strikes patients receive high quality care and become healthy again. Why do we need multiple insurance payers – private and the federal government?  If we were running a corporation we would not have two accounts payable departments?  We need to transition to individual health accounts that stay with the patient regardless of employment status beginning at birth.  Here are ideas on how this transition could work.

Complete Analysis of ACA – We need to learn from the public exchanges that work – California’s public exchange has been quite successful covering new patients, and keeping costs reasonable for low income patients.   Yet, we also need to look at why those exchanges like Oregon are not working well and expensive. Let’s summarize the analysis and publish the results so we can build a consensus around the solution, extending what works and recommendations for changes.

Priority One Cover the 9 Million Uninsured – those not covered by insurance need insurance now, we need to figure out how to cover 100 % of our citizens immediately. Offering a public option on the exchanges for basic health services and drug coverage would be a good start.

End State by State Coverage – state pools not large enough to make insurance work for all.  With 360 million people in the US we can make our health insurance pool work to reduce costs. Plus, legislation needs to be passed to reverse the Supreme Court decision to allow states to opt out of subsidies.  For example, Texas opted out on $10 billion subsidies leaving many low income families without insurance or very high premiums they cannot afford.  Interestingly, a few months ago I talked with a small business office manager in Texas, she complained that ACA was not working (her firm did not offer health insurance), for her hourly staff. Obviously, one reason is that Texas opted out of the subsidy program. Using a national pool would help to spread out the disparities between regions in terms of the rising cost of insurance versus stagnant wage increases.

Create Individual Health Accounts – funding can be setup via a payroll tax, accrued to a personal national health insurance account when working (if they don’t have employer options – to be transitioned later). For individuals or families below the regional poverty level they would pay no health payroll tax. For those individuals who are not contributing to their health account, the federal government would fund a basic health and drug account by progressive taxes on wealthy individuals over $250k and the increase taxes on corporate profits. Corporations can offset the increased tax, by offering lower cost insurance, medigap plans or encouraging their employees to move to the basic national health insurance program.

End COBRA – by setting up health accounts regardless of being employed, there is no need for COBRA plans.  Otherwise, for those unemployed to continue coverage often they have to pay soaring COBRA premiums up to 400 % of their employed premium rate.  For this author, two major illnesses occurred when I was unemployed, often with the stress of being unemployed is the time we need health insurance.  COBRA is another example where health insurers are charging outrageous rates to those who need the insurance badly but can least afford it. For the unemployed they could rely on basic health coverage in their individual health account.

Transition Employer Plans – convert employer plans over 4 years into a national personal health care account. Rollovers can be accomplished in a similar way to 401K to IRA rollovers (without the penalty for early withdrawal).  Ending employer programs will cut a layer of administration in benefits departments that more rightly belongs to the individual regardless of employment status.

End Penalties For No Insurance – we want to to tax behavior we don’t want and support or subsidize behavior we do want.  All Americans who have Social Security numbers should be able to enroll in a personal health insurance account, if they do not have a employer sponsored program.  Parents can apply for a SSN for their child to be covered.  A public insurance option should be offered to all those families not in employer sponsored programs. The public option run by Medicare is a basic health insurance program run similar to basic Medicare for seniors with medigap plans to cover the other 80 % of coverage needed.

Use the Medicare Drug Formulary – we don’t need multiple formularies and tiers of drug coverage. Medicare already provides one formulary which should be used as the industry formulary.  We need to empower Medicare to negotiate all drug prices and health procedures with providers with provision for regional differences on procedures.  A critical medication list can be created by Medicare for life threatening (Epipens) or serious chronic conditions (diabetes) capped at 5% profit for drug manufacturers.

End Stock Buybacks by Insurers – insurers need to end stock manipulation and the waste of stock buybacks. Companies like Aetna have spent billions of dollars on stock buybacks which would go a long way to reducing premiums and costs to patients.

Pricing needs to be transparent – similar to a mortgage disclosure statement. The explanation of benefits and drug claim form needs to be clear about the provider or drug price, any discounts and rebates, the price the insurer is paying, the price the provider is actually requiring, the price the pharmacy is paying and the exact out of pocket cost to the patient, with patient accruals in out of pocket and co pays toward insurance coverage.

Do it Without Waiting – let’s get progressive investors to back drug manufacturers that adhere to drug cost reasonable, critical med list, transparent pricing innovative insurance, publicize get more investors on board. Work with Wall Street to setup an ETF stock to focus on companies adhering to the progressive national health programs demonstrating good returns.

Awareness of What Works – A media campaign with surrogates, leadership in Congress, interest groups like the AMA, and the insurers to bring the American people along on the solution journey and to put pressure on Congress to pass the necessary legislation.

Health insurers would focus on medigap plans, taking risk out of innovative drugs to help speed them to market, vision and integrative medicine, personalized medicine, telemedicine – taking their layer out with reduce costs dramatically. They can be contractors to Medicare for transition to health accts. Or insurers can be contract administrators to Medicare, keeping costs low and utilizing their expertise.

Lets establish a lifetime health insurance program that provides good quality care, and low cost medications for all Americans.

(Editor Note: References for this article appear in the Research section of this site.)

 

Corporate Nation-States Run The Country: They Should Be Accountable, Ensuring National Interest First

leviathan_by_thomas_hobbes

The View:

Corporations provide the means for all of us to make a living, innovate new services and products and enjoy a better life.   Plus,  Entrepreneurship Can Tip The Inequality Scale . Yet, the character and sheer power of corporations over our lives and country has led to a ‘set of corporate nation-states’ running things by their own rules.

When this author worked at Hewlett-Packard in the computer systems group, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard still ran the company, visited employees at their desk, bought a redwood park for employees and their families, always included families in quarterly celebrations. When things got tough, we all took a one tenth pay cut for the tenth were were asked to voluntarily work, we worked anyway to help get the company back and rolling – saving thousands of jobs. Personal and family life was respected, supported and separated for from work life.
Today, things are different at a middle sized fast growing software company last December. During an All Hands meeting our CEO declared ‘happy holidays’ then made a demand – request, ‘enjoy spending thirty minutes with your families, then back to work…’.  That requirement for a complete focus on the needs of the company says it all – now we are expected to return emails, text messages, and cell calls on a 24/7 basis. We are expected to hold conference calls on our vacations, bring our laptops to do conference screen sharing events, and complete assignments from our hotel or getaway lodge – making sure they have Internet access. Oh, don’t forget to get a plane flight that provides Internet support.  While, we are on the Internet, companies track our every click, own our comments on Facebook, target advertising on the last search we did and track our physical movements via smartphone GPS signals, stored for future marketing purposes.  Their control of us individually is all but complete (we can still turn links off if we chose).

How much control do corporations have in our society and government today?  A few research data points tell the story:

  1. By 2014, Wall Street’s largest 5 banks held 45 % of all banking assets up from 25 % in 2000. The financial industry overall spent $3.3 billion dollars on lobbying from 1998 – 2014 to the federal government. The Center for Responsive Politics found that Wall Street spent $1.5 million per day on lobbying activities in 2014!
  1. In 2014, the top five US drug manufacturers controlled over 24 % of the world-wide drug market of $1 trillion dollars, to ensure their control in the US they paid for 1,100 lobbyists in 2014 and spent over $2.9 billion from 1998 to 2014 on federal lobbying efforts.
  1. We know how Internet pervasive Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and Google, they ensure their control with corporate lobbying of nearly $40 million in 2013 alone, with Google becoming a leader in lobbying dollars spent in 2014.
  1. Agri-businesses like Monsanto controls 24 % of the seed business and Dupont (Pioneer) owns 17 % market share globally, the agri business induatry spent $132 million in lobbying efforts in 2015 alone, supporting over 1,000 lobbyists in Washington. Up from $70 million spent in 1999.

So are we getting the laws that represent us versus the vast corporate lobbying juggernaut?  No, Gilens and Page (Professors at Princeton and Northwestern) looked at over 1779 federal laws and found no laws that were enacted based on what the public majority opinion was on the topic!  Little wonder we don’t get the laws we want compared to the lobbying and campaign efforts of Fortune 500 corporations.

To have a country ‘by the people, for the people and of the people’ as Lincoln eloquently noted in his Gettysburg address. We need to bring corporate nation-states into governance by the people for the people and of the people.

The Action:

Corporate Taxes – Fair Share

  1. Corporate taxes need to be simplified and increased to a total of 7 % of GDP (1954) not the present 1 %.
  1. Corporate profits generated overseas need to be taxed at 35 % if not invested in jobs, training, education, new plants here in the US.
  1. Stock Transaction Tax – on transactions generated in both public exchanges and dark pool exchanges.
  1. Tax Executive Pay – at regular corporate rates and end the corporate deduction for stock compensation above $1 million.

Corporate Regulation – Save Lives, Save Dollars

  1. Drug Company Prices – generate a list of ‘patient critical medicines’ that Medicare and Medicaid can negotiate prices for everyone to pay.
  1. Single Payer Health – it does not make sense to still leave 32 million Americans out of the health services system, and it does not make sense to have two national ‘accounts payable’ groups; private insurers and Medicare the overlapping operations costs billions of dollars and the lives of many patients.
  1. Food Supplement Industry – today the supplement industry can introduce their products without prior certification of health or contents, these supplement products need to fall under FDA oversight with prior product health certification prior to product launch. Industry lobbying has stopped  a bill authorizing the FDA, this law must be passed.
  1. Chemicals and Toxic Substances – the old TSCA (Toxic Substances and Control Act) law of 1976 has not been updated, new legislation to bring substances into compliance and regulation prior to product launch (the policy in the European Union) has been brought to Congress and stalled due to industry lobbying, it must be passed.

Corporate Governance – Represent employees and community, stock transparency

  1. Employee Representatives on Board – The Top 500 corporations by revenue would be required to have at least one employee council representative (councils will be formed by vote of employees).
  1. Community Representation on Board – The Top 500 corporations by revenue would be required to include up to 30 % of board representatives from the communities they do business in.
  1. End Stock Manipulation – The Top 500 corporations by revenue would be required to end stock buybacks, disclose all stock activities within 24 hours as they occur, and use GAAP accounting practices first, with non – GAAP reporting second. All overseas sales, profits and operations would be fully disclosed, with any material changes disclosed as discovered to the general investor community immediately. SEC funding would be increased to enforce these changes.

Corporate Lobbying – Level the Field with Voters

  1. End Super PAC and Corporate PAC donations, with single donations to campaigns at individual rate $2700.
  1. Corporate lobbying would be limited to one representative per firm, full disclosure of meeting with government officials within 24 hour after the meeting on a federal government website.
  1. Corporate disclosure in funding all political advertising, would need to show the corporate name and individuals who approved the funding.

(Note:  The Story with detailed research analysis, plus more information on The Action will be forthcoming in this in depth look at corporate nation-states. The Editor).

Mylan’s Executives Go Too Far: Bring Down the Price of Epipens, End Executive Perks

369px-Gillray_Shakespeare_Sacrificed_20_June_1789

(Editor Note: August 29, 2016 – Mylan executives announced they would introduce a generic version of the two Epipen product for $300.  This move is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough, the two pack was priced at $100 in 2007.  So, this price move is a 300 % increase instead of 578 %,  just not enough.  Particularly, when inflation has been on average 1.4 % since 2007,  or 11.2 %.  Our view is Mylan still needs to end stock buy backs in the amount of $1 billion, lower extremely high executive pay based on stock performance, plus, drugs like the Epipen which are life saving should be categorized as  ‘patient critical’. )

The View:

Mylan’s executives have raised the price of two Epipens, used to counteract allergic reactions, over 578 % since 2007.  They made this move because soon a generic alternative was coming on the market from Teva – however the FDA found deficiencies in their product.  So, Mylan has a virtual monopoly.  This gives them extreme pricing power to drive profits for the firm.  While, Mylan has been raising prices, for the last year they have been buying back stock – authorized up to $1 billion over the last year.  Stock buybacks are employed by companies to take stock off the open market, to try to move the stock price up – these funds are not invested in product innovation, worker salaries, or cost reduction.  Mylan’s executives have highly leveraged stock compensation plans, so stock buybacks can put money in their pocket – taking dollars from patients and parents who critically need the Epipen.  Epipen sales are estimated to be $1.7 billion per year, so $1 billion in stock buyback funds would go a long way to reduce the price of Epipens!  While Mylan has spent these funds over the last year ending Aug 27 of this year, they have been issuing corporate bonds for hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of using debt funds for stock buybacks they could be used to reduce the price of Epipens. While, Mylan says they offer coupons to those with insurance and out of pocket copays it is not nearly enough – they still have not reduced the price of the product. By keeping the product price high they maintain their revenue stream via the drug insurers. Those families without insurance, are paying $608 for two Epipens, the full retail price.  This is an example of a indirect income transfer from the poor and middle class who can’t afford these sky high prices to the top 1 % in executive ranks.  The Action:

  1. End Stock Buy Backs – corporations are using stock buybacks to manipulate and control their stock price without immediate disclosure. Support Senator Tammy Baldwin’s request for disclosure and enforcement of existing laws and write to the SEC.
  1. Sign the MoveOn.org Petition – they are collecting signatures to be sent to Mylan CEO Heather Bresch
  1. Convince university and foundation endowment administrators to sell their holdings in Mylan shares until the firm ends stock buybacks and reduces the price of the Epipen product.
  1. Establish a list of ‘patient critical’ drugs, monitor their price, when it moves too high, release PR campaigns directed at the offending firms and demand price reductions (along with stock buybacks that are taking money right out of patient pockets).

The Story:

Mylan management employed a standard industry practice (which is debatable ethically) to raises prices of a drug just before the drug goes off patent and a generic competitor emerges.  The firm can milk this income stream before losing market share and price position.  In this case, the executive team went way to far raising prices on a product that is critical for patient health.   Most schools require that parents provide an Epipen for a student who may suffer a major allergenic reaction, thus creating critical demand for the drug.

Does Mylan have the ability to reduce the price by up to 50 %Yes!  a year ago Mylan’s board approved the buyback of Mylan stock in the open market up to $1 billion!   That $1 billion would go a long way toward reducing the price of the product to all patients.  Stock buybacks are used by corporations to drive their stock price up by reducing the number of shares to investors in the open market. By moving the stock price up, they will increase the value of the shares they hold thereby increasing their compensation. Mylan’s stock price hit a high of 76 dollars the summer of 2015, then concerns about the Epipen and other issues saw the stock price fall – which is why the board authorized the stock buy back for one year ending Aug 27 2016 (to make the chart large right click on the image, the bars below price are stock volume for the week):

MyL stock chart 8-26-16

Mylan executives receive the majority of their compensation from stock performance of shares they hold and options on additional shares.  Notice that the stock did move up some last year, but intelligent investors are beginning to question the viability of stock buybacks as they do nothing for the viability of the company in the future. There is no investment in worker salaries, worker development and education, research and development or systems to reduce costs. Please see my blog on Stock Buy Backs Spike Executive Pay for more background and details on this unethical practice.

Mylan says they are helping out with costs – but are they really?  while Mylan says they will help with coupons for out of pocket expenses or copays that is fine. Except, there are many patients and parents of children who need two pens (home and school) who do not have drug insurance and many others with high deductibles which Mylan’s offer does not cover.  Often arrangements between insurers and drug companies are setup where they negotiate the price lower than the list retail (ie two pens for $608), lowering the cost to the insurance firm, but giving the drug company an ongoing revenue stream and access to more patients.  When Mylan picks up the out of pocket expense it is in effect it is subsidizing Epipen’s high price.  Of course, the high prices fall hardest on those with no insurance who pay the full retail price.

Is our federal government indirectly supporting these actions by Mylan executives?  Yes! Federal government policies and tax laws contribute to this unacceptable corporate executive behavior. Corporations receive income tax deductions for corporate executive performance compensation (stock) above $1 million, During the Clinton administration in 1993 this tax provision was approved – in effect subsidizing these exorbitant executive compensation plans when companies are not paying their fair share of taxes, leaving us to pick up the tab.

In addition, Mylan, has purchased the development assets of Abbott Labs overseas and this is able to use a tax inversion (allowing favorable tax treatment for operations in lower tax countries) to move their tax rate on these operations from 25 – 35% to 12 – 15%. It seems if they enjoy this tax break the dollars saved in taxes could go to reducing the price of the drug.

The firm has employed financial engineering to dress up the balance sheet as well.  By using highly leveraged corporate debt used for stock buybacks (they have billions of dollars in debt offerings) these borrowed funds were used to perform the stock buybacks and possible future acquisitions. Instead of using the proceeds of these corporate debt offerings to finance stock buybacks, this money could be used to reduce the price of Epipens.

The Action:

It’s time to take action –

  1. End Stock Buy Backs – corporations are using stock buybacks to manipulate and control their stock price without disclosure. Support Senator Tammy Baldwin’s request for disclosure and enforcement of existing laws and write to the SEC.
  1. Sign the MoveOn.org Petition – they are collecting signatures to be sent to Mylan CEO Heather Bresch
  1. Convince university and foundation endowment administrators to sell their holdings in Mylan shares until the firm ends stock buybacks and reduces the price of the Epipen product.
  1. Establish a list of ‘patient critical’ drugs, monitor their price, when it moves too high, release PR campaigns directed at the offending firms and demand price reductions (along with stock buybacks that are taking money right out of patient pockets).
  1. Write to your senator or congressman to end corporate income tax deductions for executive performance compensation above $1 million, and the foreign tax escape of corporate inversions.

 

 

Page 17 of 18

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén