Monk

"Always Know"

According to this New Yorker tribute, which was written for his 100th birthday anniversary, the self-taught pianist, Thelonius Monk, was known to say "Always Know"--to me suggesting a truly American perspective.  For to really know, is to explore everything oneself.  This then leads to knowing that one has settled on the best direction forward, which is cool.

The Republican Tax Plan: D- Territory

Let's Make Things Worse

Ok, let's jot down a few reactions to the Republican Tax Plan:

* Cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%.  This is their top priority, but because U.S. corporations already have a record $1.84 trillion in cash to spend on investment, giving them more won't so much spur investment as mean higher dividends to shareholders.  And because foreigners own 35% of the U.S. stock market, about a third of this cut will go to foreigners.  F+

 * Caps the mortgage interest deduction at $500,000.  As Kevin Drum has shown, this change would hurt Blue states more than Red.  This will probably doom their entire plan, since homebuilders have an outsized voice in Washington.  If it weren't for the differences in housing markets, this would actually be a fairly welcome change, as it would affect those who probably don't need the break.  For sure it should apply to second homes.  B-

 * Eliminates the State and Local Tax Deduction.  Drum's link (above) shows this is another attack on Blue states, though if it had a fairly high cut off, those who could afford it would be the only ones affected.  C

 * Wipes out Student Loan Deduction.  While we're still on the above link, Drum shows a similar pattern for those taking out student loans--more college degrees in Blue states.  This seems petty, unproductive and would likely tick off many voters.  F

 * Increases the Child Tax Credit by $600.  Seems sensible, though Drum shows this helps Red states more than Blue.  With life spans likely to grow rapidly in the near future (at least for healthy people), one could argue that we have enough humans on the planet; or..., that more workers are needed to support all our retirees--or are robots supposed to step in?  C

 * Ends the Medical Expenditures Deduction.  Following Drum's above linked article, we see this actually hurts Red states most.  It was probably included to congratulate healthy people.  F

 * Removes Alimony Deduction.  This would be a huge hit for those divorced.  Drum thinks this might be a sop to the Religious Right.  C-

 * The end of deductions for Adoptions, Gambling Losses, Tax Preparation, and Moving Expenses.  These seem to be the equivalent of coins in the pocket, though I don't have any great objections, except for Adoptions.  C-

 * Upends the Electric Vehicle and Renewable Energy Incentives.  This is crazy, given climate change.  F

 * Changes to Business Taxes that directly benefit our current president.  Anyone voting for this plan should expect to be considered an enabler of unethical behavior, at the least.  F

 * Killing the Estate Tax.  This alone would likely save the eventual Trump estate hundreds of millions.  F

 * Socking the treasury with another $1.5 trillion in debt over ten years.  With low unemployment, we should be saving for a rainy day, not spending the next generation's money for them.  Tax cuts were famously tried by the Republicans 15 years ago, and resulted in no economic bounce.  Why would the same thing supercharge the economy this time?  It wouldn't.  F

So, to recap: B (1), C (4), F (7).  Put this thing out of its misery.

Marijuana and Democratic Party Fortunes

Is Marijuana A Factor?

I was reading the NYRB this evening.  Michael Tomasky was reviewing the Democratic Party's resistance to the Trump administration.  He mentions a Pew poll that found non-voters (registered voters who didn't vote in '12, '14 and '16) are overwhelmingly Democratic or lean Democratic, 52 to only 27% Republican.  I checked out the Pew poll in question and thought I saw 58/37.  But, even so, the difference is large.

The poll found that non-voters were generally those who were the least engaged with society (they cared less about who won elections, for example).

Which got me thinking: this sounds a lot like steady marijuana users: involved in their own individualistic worlds.  So, I checked out the percentage of U.S. users over the past 50 years, and found that it began at about 5% in '70 and reached 10% by '73, then 25% by '77, and 35% by '85.  Of course these figures are for those who had at least 'tried' marijuana.  This likely means that the early years included very few who were steady users.  By '85, this would likely have been reversed, and a majority, probably, were consistent users.

If so, we have a fairly good match for the plunge into Republicanism, and Conservatism in general, that occurred between '70 and '90.  One could even say that the one Democratic president elected in that timeframe, Carter in '76, was the Democratic Party's answer to the decline of their natural constituency, as a significant 10% or so of the electorate became steady users, and drifted away into self-absorbption; and that answer was to appeal to the center of the political spectrum.  That political/geographic answer was seconded by Clinton in '92; and, perhaps, it's only been the natural increase in the Democratic Party's demographics since then (as the proportion of non-college-educated white voters has declined) that allowed Obama to win in '08 and '12, and Clinton to win the popular vote in '16.

Not an obvious case to make, but possibly under-appreciated, if true.  And the case for steady users emerging from their habit would be strengthened if a connection were confirmed.  For example, if Pew were to ask about attitudes regarding marijuana in their next poll of voters/non-voters, and whether participants used it recreationally, non-voters could then be compared to users.

The Birth Of Truly Universal Health Care

Is Medicare For All The Answer?

Today I read Medicare-For-All Isn't The Solution.  I also read nearly everyone's take in the Comments Sections.  So, do I agree?

The author, Joshua Holland, sees major problems with any 'single payer' model that's ambitious:

* Those with fairly good coverage (and familiar doctors) would be trading a system they like for something else; this is always a hard sell.

* A gradual transition (more than five years, say) would likely be necessary, once victory is had.

* Medicare itself is nearly one third private policies under Medicare Advantage, chosen because the subsidies are sweet; and a quarter of these policies are augmented by extra coverage.

* Politically, it would be a heavy lift, requiring that moderate Democrats in the Senate be on board to be successful.

* European models were commonly formed when healthcare was a fraction of its present size; plus most other systems include a mix of public and private.

* Regarding the question: Why can't medical bills just be paid by the government?  Medical bills are commonly reduced by insurers before they pay; so who'd decide what's reasonable?  And if doctors and hospitals are told what compensation they're getting, what if doctors quit and hospitals close?

* Serious opposition would move the polling numbers from favorable to negative.  Just think of all those who already have health care coverage provided by their employers being asked to pay a large new tax for equivalent coverage.

On the other hand, cutting out the middleman to save money is an idea that's easy to grasp.

Now that most potential Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election have come out in favor of Medicare-For-All, the likelihood is that Democrats will advocate for it with little attention paid to its potential problems.  The alternatives that might be more likely?

* A public option available on the ObamaCare exchanges.  This would be a generic policy without the insurance industry as the middleman.  But, the bigger the payer (Medicare), the lower the prices, so the potential savings here might not be as great as desired.

* A gradual, lite, Medicare-For-Those-Who-Want-It.  Maybe start with 60-65 year-olds.  These would  be the sickest of the under-65 crowd, which would mean a lot of extra expense.  Who pays the taxes for this kind of step?  At least this cohort would be part of a much larger group, so unlike a public option, prices could be bargained down.

* Getting ObamaCare back on track after the Trump presidency.  Stabilize marketplaces, expand subsidies for those who can't afford them, invigorate cost-containment structures, and get all states to expand Medicaid.

Where do I come down?  I can see the arguments on all sides, though I'm probably on the side of a Hillary Clinton "What's a good first step?" rather than a Bernie Sanders' "What do we want?"  But then I'm fairly healthy and have fairly good coverage.