Our Teenager-In-Chief?

The Bumbler 45000

Protesting the newly inaugurated administration in Washington is something most people will shy away from.  They'll turn down the volume and work on their hobbies.

Others will hold up a mirror to the inevitable ineptitude of what strikes me as a teenager-who-thinks-he's-got-it (hey, I'm a big boy, the answers're so simple, just apply power and..., whoops I broke it).

Naturally, I won't be obsessing; but neither will I be oblivious.  Instead, I'm rolling out a newly acquired gadget, the Bumbler 45000, which will keep track of the hash being made in DC.

Unfortunately, the 45000 doesn't register anything over 45%.  So, to turn the machine off, the new administration will have to get its approval number up to at least 45%, in which case I'll turn the thing off.

Presently, the 45000 registers a modestly gloomy 38000-40000.  For the coming month I look for a slight uptick to 41500, due to the inevitable goodwill a new beginning engenders.  And whenever I think it warranted, I'll repost this with an adjusted setting.

The reason I'm fiddling with this gadget is that I intend to suggest, from time to time, a way forward.

RE my initial advice to essentially add a lottery to Obamacare and call it Trumpcare:  Due to the lottery's draw, the new signers-up--mainly young and healthy--would be just what the ACA needed to work better.  In fact, the $3-4 billion spent on the lottery each year would likely pay for itself, over time, with lower premiums.  The upshot: something like a 44500 reading as everyone gasped at Mr. Trump's brilliant first step forward.

So, what about the gadget's lower readings, you ask?  This is what I'll call a Default Win.  That's because the lower the reading, the likelier a purge of flunkies.  The worst case scenario is that the Bumbler 45000 never makes it above 40000, nor below 30000, and the teenager sticks to his initial team out of a sense of loyalty.

To be fair, I'll also ID anything that looks like a smart move.  For example, because our teenager wants to fight "the establishment"--a likely con (What else are you going to say when appointing fat cats to high office?), there are potential seeds for a success or two.  So far, the consensus is that there's at least one grown-up in the cabinet: the 'mad dog' at Defense.  Update: Add VA Secretary nominee to this list.

Unflinching Projection for the end of January: 41500

Feel Like A Million

If Trump Were Brilliant

I was reading Kevin Drum's #1 rated blog this morning, and got to thinking about his take on ObamaCare.

Drum argues that everything about the Affordable Care Act is popular--with Democrats, Independents and even Republicans, except of course for the Individual Mandate that requires everyone to have insurance.  But what if that one exception could be given a Trumpian spin, such that everything else is left alone.  If that were possible, everyone wins.  Trump is the unifier;  Republicans go along to avoid the ineluctable contradictions of "replacing" ObamaCare; Democrats are willing to let Trump bag a gob of glory if their vision is preserved; and a B program is upgraded to B+.

And how could that be possible?  Everyone knows that one of the ineluctable contradictions of replacing ObamaCare is that once you remove the Individual Mandate, the pool of insured people in any particular plan skews sicker and sicker, as costs rise and healthier customers exit.   If you're one of the last 25- or 35 -year-olds to have insurance in a plan, premiums will likely have already doubled, tripled or quadrupled, and can be expected to rise even further, meaning you can't afford insurance, even if you still wanted it.

Feel Like A Million?
But what if we simply sweeten the recipe with an outlandish, Trumpian gesture?  What if all those angry young men who resent being forced to buy something they sense they don't need had a self-interested reason to buy it, even if they only did so grudgingly?

Ah, you say, but what do young people really want?  Cash.  What if Trump proposed that a contest be run to encourage a healthy citizenry.  Winners would receive a million dollars--thus the slogan, Feel Like A Million.  Each congressional district would have ten winners a year, drawn randomly from among those who had insurance.  436 x 1,000,000 x 10 = $4.36 billion.

But how is this a contest, rather than a lottery?  Winners would be guaranteed $100,000.  To get the full $1,000,000, winners would have to have visited their doctor at least once over the past year, and discussed various preventive healthcare options like vaccinations, cancer screening, smoking cessation, etc.  They wouldn't have to do anything, just have a talk with their doctor about their health and how they might improve it.  A winner's insurer would of course be paying for the preventive care, and thus have a record of it taking place, which would trigger the larger payout should that individual's name be chosen.

You may not like the money-for-nothing, Trumpian feel here.  And research is skeptical as to whether preventive medicine really does pay for itself.  But does any of that matter?  Remember, everyone wins.  Even the cost of up to $3-4 billion (not the full 4.36, since some winners would've skipped the doctor visit, and could only claim $100,000), would likely pay for itself.  How?  Because those being attracted to health insurance in 2018 won't be the sick; they've already signed up.  It would be the young people who feel so healthy that they pay the tax penalty for not having insurance.  And the more that healthy people sign up, the less insurers need charge in order to break even; and, yes, insurers are limited in the percentage of revenue they can keep for profits, overhead, etc., so that $3-4 billion would likely pay for itself with generally lower premiums the following year.

Redesigned Website

Hey, it looks different!

In with the new year....  I'm trying out this different design and layout.

Just browsing this blog's controls, I found out quite a bit about where my traffic comes from.  Seems Russian readers accounted for a plurality of visitors last month.  France was third after the US.  Portugal, Germany, Brazil and Poland trailed far behind.  When I looked at visits for the last 7 years, I found it was the US with a majority, followed by France (about a quarter of that), Russia, Germany, Poland, Portugal after that, then Malaysia, Sweden, Romania, and Ukraine for the top ten.

And last month's most-popular-articles list correlated with a list of most recently published.  Seems the way-back-machine, where I had links to all previous posts--on the right-hand margin--wasn't being used, so I axed it.  I also did away with the "about me" section.  If you want contact information and a little bit about me, click my name at the bottom of any given post.

All in favor of a happy new year?

1st Annual Best Blogger Award -- 2016

Who's The Most Interesting?

Putting on my objective reader's hat, I rate the following bloggers, starting with #10 and ending with the award winner at #1.  And then I link to the specific pieces that demonstrate why deciding on this year's #1 was fairly straightforward:

#10: Alison Tyler.  My favorite writer, she recently moved her blogging behind a paywall.  However, her tweets are simply 'testifying' you won't find elsewhere.

#9: Martin Longman.  Writes on politics for The Washington Monthly.

#8: Jamelle Bouie.  Writes on public policy for Slate.

#7: Josh Marshall.  His website, TPM, is notable for its humorous take-downs.  A trained historian, Mr. Marshall is occasionally first with a smart take.

#6: Sarah Kliff.  Writes for Vox, usually on health care.  Blockbuster pieces, like her recent interviews with ObamaCare enrollees in Kentucky who voted for Trump.

#5: Paul Krugman.  A columnist for The New York Times, Mr. Krugman has recently focused on twitter.  Nevertheless, his occasional blog posts are almost always classics.

#4: Alex Voltaire.  His website, The Northumbrian Countdown, is ambitious.  He recently rated, in-depth, the top 100 eligible acts that have yet to make it into the Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame.

#3: James Fallows.  Writes for the Atlantic.  His 150+ post series called out Trump for stepping over the line during the '16 campaign.  A likely 'senior advisor' in any serious presidency.

#2: Nancy LeTourneau.  Writes with calming illumination for The Washington Monthly.

#1: Kevin Drum.  Writes with unmatched insight, appearing on the Mother Jones website.  I've been following Mr. Drum since his days as Calpundit, prior to his move to The Washington Monthly, and now Mother Jones.

A few recent gems:

On December 16th: A brief, but in-depth look at what FBI director James Comey did.

Also on 12/16: a very brief piece on why Bernie would have lost against Trump.

And 12/17: whose income rose and whose fell under Obama years tax policy?  Answer: poorest 20%: +17% rise;  next poorest 20%: +6% rise;  middle 20%: +1% rise; second highest 20%: no change; top 80%-90%: 1% decline;  95%-99%: 2% decline;  99%-99.9: 5% decline;  99.9-100%: 10% decline.  This, a recipe for economic growth, effectively kept lackluster by Republicans in congress.

Plus, perhaps Mr. Drum's most famous blogging, concerning the link between leaded gasoline and crime:  This article and a brief follow-up is the deciding factor in why Drum's blogging takes the 1st Annual Best Blogger Award here at Uncut.

Another Start-Up Idea

Poetry In Voting

I was enjoying Amanda Nadelberg's musings about how society might pay poets, when several related thoughts merged into one:

* As Ms. Nadelberg notes, we compliment something for being "poetic", but very few of us buy poetry.

* Furthermore, poetry has merged with life like never before.  Dylan's Nobel Prize for literature; the prevalence and cachet of slang; the compacting of a Twitter-ized world's words.

* What would an online poetry start-up look like?

Something clicked in my head, namely the ranked voting idea used in Ireland and Australia, among other places, and recently adopted by Maine's voters.

Suppose 100 poets each pay $10 to enter a poetry contest.  They're divided up into ten teams.  Each team member's poem is posted and read by the other nine team members.  Members then rank the poetry, including their own, from 1-to-10.  Points are awarded for rank received (the average: a 50 score).   Winners from each team (perhaps the top three) are then part of two larger teams of 15 members who again rank poems.  This time the top four in each team meet for a final time.  The overall winner, and perhaps three runner-ups, have their poems published.  Prize money is $750 ($250 to the house), divided $500, $150, $75, $25.  Or, no house take if done by a large website.  Or, even no prize money.

Many objections arise.    

#1: Wouldn't entrants game the system by ranking their own poem at #10, the next best at #1, then #2 and so on?  Ok, a simple twist removes this problem, and this is where the ranked voting system comes in handy.  Rank the rankers, themselves, as to their acuity, then rerank, subtracting the first 1 - to - 10 scale by the second.  The ability to judge is then applied to the original rankings.  Voila, a system that rewards the most perceptive poets' opinions, and penalizes any gamey tendencies.

#2:  Wouldn't this elevate mushy, overly pleasing poetry, rather than the best?  No, because like the art world, the most appreciated and attuned voices have the most say.  We might even claim that art is made.

#3:  And shouldn't the entry fee be $100 so that the winner actually wins something?  Maybe, but aren't many poets so poor that even $10's a stretch?  Besides, the publicity from winning is probably more important.  And, if there were more like 1,000 entries, the more profound monetary effect could be had.

Just for fun, here's an example that uses a mere five poems (all very, very short, mind you.)  Note: judging (the second ranking) is based on how many places away each member's judgement is from the 1st set:

The Contestants and their Poems
1. Lisa:    Spontaneous Bust
2. Dave:    Exxon Bubble
3. DeVaughn:    Virtual Fealty
4. Noki:      Bygones Fee
5. Shalomar:      Truss Me

Rankings
Lisa likes 2 and 3.  She votes 3,1,2,4,5
Dave likes 1, 3 and 5.  He votes 2,5,1,3,4
DeVaughn likes 1.  He votes 3,1,5,4,2
Noki likes 1 and 5.  She votes: 4,5,1,3,2
Shalomar likes 1.  They vote: 1,5,3,2,4

The initial ranking totals (5 points for a 1st place vote, 4 for 2nd, etc.):
1. 19
2. 12
3. 17
4. 11
5. 16

Judging
Now we compare each member's ranking with the end result.
Lisa was one off on her #1 pick; again one off, again -1, -1 and -2 = -6
Dave: -3, -1, -2, -2, 0 = -8
DeVaughn: -1, -1, 0, -1, -1 = -4
Noki: -4, -1, -2, -2, -1 = -10
Shalomar: 0, -1, -1, 0, 0 = -2

Subtraction gives us:

Lisa: 19 - 6 = 13
Dave: 12 - 8 = 4
DeVaughn: 17 - 4 = 13
Noki 11 - 10 = 1
Shalomar: 16 - 2 = 14

Ranking Based On Judging
Lisa for DeVaughn: 65, for herself: 52, for Dave: 39, for Noki: 26, for Shalomar: 13
Dave for himself: 20, for Shalomar: 16, for Lisa: 12, for DeVaughn: 8, for Noki: 4
DeVaughn for himself: 65, for Lisa: 52, for Shalomar: 39, for Noki: 26, for Dave: 13
Noki for herself: 5, for Shalomar: 4, for Lisa: 3, for DeVaughn: 2, for Dave: 1
Shalomar for Lisa: 70, for themselves: 56, for DeVaughn: 42, for Dave: 28. for Noki: 14

Totals:
Lisa: 189
Dave: 101
DeVaughn: 182
Noki: 75
Shalomar: 128


Result: Lisa wins 1st, then DeVaughn, then Shalomar, then Dave, then Noki.

We see that Shalomar was the best judge of others' work, but wasn't thought to be as poetic.  Meanwhile, Lisa, despite ranking herself second, and not being particularly good at judging others, won, because she had the best poem.

Internet 2.0

Starting Again, Fresh

Walter Isaacson writes on the Atlantic website that if we wanted to, we could build a second internet based on verifiable addresses.

Essentially, the system would trade sender anonymity, at the core of the present system, for the following:

   * a way to handle small monetary transactions without cc numbers/passwords

   * this would include single-click small amounts paid content creators

   * security, including the near absence of fake news, bullying and worse

The possibilities for online voting and democratic deliberation interest me, as anyone might guess from my political proposals.  Perhaps Internet 2.0 could be built with assistance form the government to enable online voting, and could then expand to include more and more content from those tired of all the young men in their parents' basements throwing anonymous insults and worse at others.  Eventually, it might voluntarily win over a good part of the original internet.

Secondly, this would make possible a 'tip jar' atmosphere for content that blooms into new businesses and art forms.  I know, this is already possible, but not nearly as likely, due to time and security constraints.

   

Promising, if done as a voluntary opt in.   Article also available on LinkedIn with more in-depth comments.

Why Blue's Ahead Of Red

Truth Bears Fruit

Just a brief reminder that Democratic presidents tend to increase incomes among the poor and middle class, due to higher taxes on the rich.  This, in turn, makes for faster economic growth than under Republican presidents, who tend to do the opposite.

Why is this truth and not opinion?  Because it's easy to understand.  Compare these two uses for the same money:

  * A Republican tax break allows a rich person to buy a very expensive Christmas ornament to hang on their tree.
  * A Democratic tax credit helps five poor people buy things like a car, health insurance, or college tuition.

See?  The ornament produces the same GDP bang for the buck, initially, since buying it uses the same amount of money.  But after that?  Nothing.  It just hangs on the tree for a few weeks a year.  Meanwhile, there's add-on economic benefits if a car means getting to a better paying job, health insurance means staying at the job (and off medicaid), and a college education means access to that better job.  The better-suited job could mean leaving a lower level job for someone else; maybe even gaining enough experience to open one's own business.  And then there's future car-related maintenance, the productivity gained with the right person in the right job, and the additional benefits of a college experience--all economic pluses.

Though our example is something of an exaggeration (since the ornament really is an extreme case), it nevertheless gets at why Democratic policy bears fruit (Clinton's and Obama's economic upswings) and Republican prescriptions tend to end in recessions (Reagan/Bush in '83 and '91; Bush  in '08).

And is Blue generally ahead of Red?  Yes.  Check out the year-by-year chart here.  And note that the US economy did its best when taxes were generally higher on the wealthy ('50s, '60s) than when they were much lower ( '00s).
The top tax rate under various presidents:
Eisenhower: 92%-91%
Kennedy & Johnson: 91%
Nixon: 77% --> 71%
Ford & Carter: 70%
Reagan: 69.125%
Bush: 31%
Clinton: 39.6%
Bush & Obama: 35%