A Candidate Guide, Circa 2024

Tonight the spotlight of American politics once again shines on Iowa, as it holds its quadrennial caucuses.  Beginning this year, it'll only be first-in-the-nation for the Republican party (such as it is), as the Democratic party voted to move their version to the more diverse electorate of South Carolina.

As I did in 2012, 2016, and 2020, here's my candidate guide for this cycle:

Nikki Haley --

The only one exceeding expectations in Iowa, she's not-coincidentally the least extreme on social issues, with some foreign policy experience as former U.N. Ambassador.  Very likely would be the next U.S. president if she won the nomination, and eventually agreed to discard the Trump stench.  In an attempt to save democracy, I should probably go caucus for her, but these days I don't want to register as a Republican for even one day to do it.

Ron DeSantis --

The most underperforming given the expectations of 6-9 months ago.  In addition to his aloofness and lack of charisma, he has no views setting him apart from his main competition.  Religious conservatives have boosted him, but everyone knows after Iowa, that gets him absolutely nowhere.  He's basically a dumber, meaner version of Jeb Bush, another Florida governor whose national profile went down after running for president. 

Vivek Ramaswamy --

Another guy who made a fortune running a tech company who thinks that made him an expert on everything.  Achieved his 15 minute of fame after one summertime debate, but once people looked at him more closely, they didn't like what they saw.  Basically, at this point everybody thinks he's kind of an a-hole with no political credibility.  Probably running for VP at this point.

Donald Trump --

More criminal than candidate, the MAGA cult leader is almost sure to win in a state full of caring but intellectually-challenged older rural white people.

Others Formerly Known As Candidates including Asa Hutchinson (technically still in the caucus), Chris Christie, Doug Bergum, Tim Scott, Mike Pence, Will Hurd, Ryan Binkley (who?) -- 

You weren't self-aware enough, and/or were only in it for the attention.  Thanks for visiting.

BLM v COVID

Amidst the chaos created by the COVID-19 pandemic and America’s failed federal response to it, we’ve had another major, culture-shifting series of events that has changed how the nation deals with issues of race.  I’ll reference to it as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.

BLM has been around for years, in response to over-aggressive and often fatal police interactions with black men and women.  More recently, a series of these avoidable, deadly interactions has been captured on video by either security cameras or individuals, the most notable being the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The BLM movement is now everywhere, manifested in large protests across the country.  White people are now beginning to understand the systemic, often unseen and unrecognized racism that pervades in the U.S.  There’s been a renewed effort to eliminate not only the racism, but the symbols of it, including things like the confederate flag and confederate statues.

Of course, ‘fixing’ 300 years of systemic racism isn’t going to happen overnight.  There’s still BLM resistance from the overt and covert white supremacy folks, and from the president, although saying that is redundant.  The current federal government, along with some states, would still much prefer to maintain the status quo privileges of the white Christian male.

What's equally infuriating about it is the simpleton argument from the opposition that 'all lives matter' as if that negates the BLM cause.  Here's the best analogy I've seen to counter this:  If your house is on fire, should the fire department come and pour water on all the houses on your street?  Because all houses matter, right?  Of course all houses matter, but the one to focus on is the one that's on fire.  How hard is this for people to understand? 

Private businesses will have to lead on this for now, as individuals are drawn to those showing more action, especially with their dollars.  Following the money – it’s the American Way.

When we look back on 2020, we’ll primarily consider the pandemic and how it changed society.  However, the longer lasting impact of 2020 will be how the BLM changed the way people view racism.

The Stages Of Grief For Celebrations

One of the first college classes I took was Intro to Psychology.  It's the kind of basic class you want to take if you have an undeclared major or an elective to fill, which is probably why it was mainly filled with freshmen and seniors.

It was an easy class, generally only requiring memorization for success, but it's surprising how much of it I still remember.  One of those things is the psychological stages of grief:  Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

[Technically, these were identified by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross as the stages of grief for the terminally ill in her book On Death and Dying (yes, I even remember that!) but over time they've been attributed to more than just terminal illness.]

I've often applied these stages of grief to other things.  I once did an entire presentation to a large group about the years-long need for additional financing for a project, and I used the stages of grief as a simile of sorts.  I suggested that in the past year, some in the room had moved from denial to anger to bargaining, but most hadn't yet made it to depression much less acceptance.  So I told them I was taking it upon myself to depress them that day as much as possible so they'd get to acceptance faster.

Recently, I've been applying the stages of grief to how people are treating aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.  For example, we've got an executive branch of federal government that denied it, then got angry as it happened, and is so corrupt that it will never get beyond bargaining over it while people die.

However, it's particularly applicable to those who have/had planned gatherings of many people, whether it be graduation parties, baby showers, or weddings.  First, there's a denial that the event can't happen.  Then anger about how a rare pandemic could get in the way.  Then there's the stage most are in, which is bargaining for a way to still make the event happen against needlessly exposing guests to the virus.  Of course, this also includes bargaining with vendors over monetary deposits that may have been made.

Not everyone has managed to get through to the depression stage, and then ultimate acceptance that the event either isn't going to happen, or won't be happening anywhere close to the original plan.  And not all of those who've managed to make it to acceptance are done; those proceeding with alternate plans are finding themselves right back at denial when those revised arrangements are also partly stymied.

It's a terrible year to have planned for any type of celebration, much less to try to execute said celebration.  I'm glad I'm not in that group, but if I was, I'd try to get through the stages of grief as soon as possible.

Dear Graduating Class of 2020

Although it may be the most difficult time to be a high school or college graduate EVER, those kids still expect some words of wisdom, as in past years.  Let's get to it.....

To the hard-luck graduates of 2020:

This must really suck.

It’s hard to imagine how it could be worse than ‘right now’ for a high school or college graduate, during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Not being able to make memories from that last month or so in school?  Not being able to enjoy all of the traditions and hijinks of those final days of classes?  Not being involved in all of the pomp and circumstance of graduation week?   Not being able to have all that attention from friends and relatives at graduation ceremonies and parties, nor collecting the graduation presents?

This must really suck bad.

And there’s no getting it back, either.  Oh sure, you might eventually have a ceremony of some sort.  And you’ll probably get those graduation gifts down the road.  But all of the fun – that’s just gone, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

This must really, really suck bad.

To make matters worse (especially if you’re a college graduate), you’re entering in to the worst job market of the past 90 years.  Frankly, unless you have mad skills at developing pharmaceuticals for treating or curing viruses, there isn’t much out there for you right now – unless your life’s goal is to work in an on-line shopping fulfillment warehouse, a fast food restaurant, or a slaughterhouse.

This s-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-c-k-s.

Can anything be salvaged from this incredible misfortune to make you feel better?  Sure, there are lots of things that might perk you up.  For example, since you’ll either be unemployed or taking online college classes or both, your parents are a lot more likely to let you save money by living with them rent free.  (Actually, I could only think of that one thing, and it has as many downsides as upsides.)

Let’s face it, Class of 2020 – you’ve drawn the short straw.  Civilization, with an assist from national governments, has failed you.  You only have one option:  Determination.

Put your mind to it, and you’re going to get through this, along with the knowledge that you can succeed even when starting from one of the lowest points in United States history.  That’s a great rallying point, assuming you don’t use it to start a second Civil War, and further assuming we still have a functioning society.

Years from now, you aren’t going to be that upset about the events that didn’t occur, but you might be upset that you didn’t use the events that did occur as a springboard for what might have been.

A Candidate Guide, Circa 2020

Next week, Iowa hosts its semi-famous political caucuses.  The attention this year is even more overwhelming than usual, thanks to a toxic political climate and social media.

It's time for my quadrennial assessment of the remaining candidates who are spending time in Iowa, this year limited to the Democratic Party since the Republican party is set on nominating the current ignorant, corrupt, and impeachable president.  In alphabetical order:

Joe Biden -- The safest, most moderate pick for the Dems.  A known commodity with the best chance of winning the electoral votes in the states that matter most.  He would be an more formidable candidate if he was several years younger.

Pete Buttigieg -- His moderate temperament and views, along with his military service, make him interesting.  A lack of political baggage is also a plus, but a lack of experience is a negative.  It's very surprising that he's made it this far.

Amy Klobuchar -- Another moderate whose views are reasonable and nationally appealing, and she has a neighboring state, midwestern likability to her.  However, that likability doesn't translate into passionate support for her candidacy.

Bernie Sanders -- He's been in this race before, so he knows the issues, has refined his message, and has the name recognition.  Has popularity with younger voters given his populist message, but that probably hurts more than helps in a national election.

Tom Steyer -- The 'attack Trump' strategy has appeal with some, but everyone knows he's just in it for issue advocacy and name recognition, right?

Elizabeth Warren -- The most intellectually appealing candidate, with a detailed plan for almost  everything.  Her energy and experience also help, but she limits her chances by being too far left on a few issues, namely college debt and health care.

Andrew Yang -- Doesn't seem there's any chance he'd win with no experience, but everyone should listen to what he's saying about the future of the U.S. workforce and economy.

Not mentioned is Mike Bloomberg, who isn't campaigning in Iowa but who could have an impact on the actual nominee, assuming it isn't him.

2020

Another year is ending, this one also concluding a decade.  It would be a good time for a retrospective piece on the past ten years, but lots of other entities are doing that.  I'll just stick to my usual review of the things I wanted to have happen this year, and consider some things I would like to see happen in 2020.  We'll again start with the prior year's list, with comments in ALL CAPS:

The resignation or impeachment of a mentally unstable and unqualified president -- again, no names.
IMPEACHMENT HAPPENED.  I CARRIED THIS OVER FORM THE PRIOR YEAR, WHICH TURNED OUR TO BE VERY PRESCIENT.

The electric vehicle becoming America's fastest growing (by percentage) seller.
THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE U.K. BUT NOT IN THE U.S.

Alabama and Clemson and New England to have poor football seasons.
THEY WEREN'T POOR, BUT ALABAMA AND NEW ENGLAND AT LEAST HAD DOWN YEARS.

Some major medical breakthrough, perhaps a vaccine to eliminate a dread disease.
NO.

Consistent, moderate summer rain in central Iowa.
YES.

A priest actually arrested and charged and jailed for past sexual abuse.
THIS DID HAPPEN IN PENNSYLVANIA.  IT WAS TOO PREDICTABLE, AND NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

More cities allowing app-based scooter rentals.
WHILE MORE CITIES DID ADOPT THEM, OTHER CITIES STARTED TO RESTRICT THEM.

Another scandal that ruins another Fox (News) TV personality.
NOT REALLY, ALTHOUGH THE PRIOR SCANDALS AND CURRENT PROPAGANDA AT FOX DID CAUSE SHEP SMITH TO LEAVE.

U.S. restaurants that allow payment by app, OR that bring the credit card reader to your table.THIS STILL HASN'T RECEIVED WIDESPREAD U.S. ADOPTION, WHICH IS SORT OF INFURIATING.

Me traveling to one of the five continental states in which I've never set foot.I WAS ABLE TO CROSS OFF NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA FROM MY LIST.  DOWN TO IDAHO, MICHIGAN, MONTANA, AND NORTH DAKOTA.  (IT WAS ACTUALLY SIX.).

Now, for 2020 I'd like to see these things happen:

Me traveling to the final four U.S. states in which I've never set foot.

A new president-elect and a corresponding surviving, independent, democratic republic.

More chances to make a hole-in-one (which means more time to play golf).

Widespread acceptance of plant-based meats on restaurant menus.

The Minnesota Twins to break their streak of 16 consecutive playoff game losses.

Consolidation in the video streaming service industry.

A Summer Olympics without scandal.

Greater federal regulation of Facebook, and less people using it to show me pictures of their food.

A new artist who brings back the sound of classic rock.

That I never order from a bar that tells me it has no Crown Royal Apple.

The LOST Loss

I’m a big believer in behavioral science / economics, which is essentially the idea that people are motivated in all facets of life by potential gains or losses, and their calculation of the underlying risk in achieving / suffering those gains and losses.  The gains and losses are often related to money, but can also be based on things like religion, politics, or relationships.

Unfortunately, many times humans do not properly calculate the underlying risk, leading to bad decisions / behavior.   I thought about this again this week, when the residents of my county were asked to vote in favor of voluntarily and regressively taxing themselves via a sales tax increase.

The local option sales tax (LOST) has been around for a while in Iowa, as a way for county localities to raise additional tax revenue by tacking on another 1% to the statewide sales tax.  When it was first introduced around 15 years ago, the idea was to allow counties to use the money solely for school infrastructure improvements over a 10-years taxing period.  As with most new tax ideas, I've hated it from the beginning.

Over several years, every county in Iowa passed a LOST, increasing the total sales tax from 5% to 6%.  And as a result, we have the nicest school infrastructure in the United States.  For real.  I’ve been to most other states, and their school building suck compared to Iowa.  (Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence that nicer bricks and mortar mean smarter kids, but that’s another story.)

But then something happened that was only predictable to those of us with common sense:   The LOST never went away.  In fact, after the school districts mismanaged their budgeted improvements to the tune of millions of dollars, the state decided to simply make the statewide sales tax 6%, and allow another, new LOST for counties to use as they wish.

97 Iowa counties have piled on to this regrettable legislation, leaving only two that have not voted for a new LOST that increased sales taxes from 6% to 7%.  (Note:  That isn't a 1% increase, that’s a 19% increase, a math computation the LOST supporters don’t want anyone to know about.)  My county is one of the remaining two, and this week, after an affluent neighboring suburb passed a LOST a few months ago, my county decided to have another vote.

Which brings me back to behavioral economics.  Why would anyone vote to tax themselves, especially with no explicit guarantee that local government would spend the money on non-essential services?  Yet, it happens quite often – as I mentioned, it recently happened in 97 out of 99 other instances in Iowa.   It’s usually backed with nothing more than a promise that the sales tax it would help to offset some other tax burden (this time it was property taxes) or that it would not be permanent (see above).

My answer is, it’s another matter of not properly calculating the risk.  Many people don’t recognize the cumulative impact of a regressive tax.  They think of it in terms of ‘just an extra penny on the dollar’ rather than a whopping 19% increase on every Average Joe that will probably cost hundreds of dollars a year, and many thousands of dollars over many years.

As in past LOST votes, I voted no, and I’m pleased to day this time it failed (barely).  I’m not against paying for essential government services, but I’m totally against voting to tax myself for undisclosed services I may not need, to be administered by government bureaucrats that haven’t been truthful, and who aren’t good stewards to begin with.

In other words, I’m for properly assessing risk and behaving appropriately. 

Yes We Cannabis

It’s time to catch up on the good news in world of cannabis!

In sum, the news is positive enough that I’m almost ready to declare that January 2018 will one day be considered the ‘tipping point’ in time for full decriminalization of marijuana in America.  (There’s only one thing standing in the way of that right now, more on that in a few paragraphs.)

The thing getting the most attention now is the legalization of recreation marijuana in the state of California.  That became effective on January 1, 2018, and now like several other (mostly western) states, they allow anyone at least age 21 to buy a limited amount of cannabis daily.

The difference here is, California is the most populous state in the country.  As such, the implications are more profound.  One of these implications is the amount of tax revenue this law will bring to a state that sorely needs it.

Make no mistake, money (i.e. tax revenue) is why cannabis will ultimately be legalized in all 50 states.   That isn’t the only reason, nor the best reason, but it’s the main reason.

[This would normally be where I go on a rant about how marijuana should be no more controlled than alcohol, and probably less controlled than prescription drugs.  But I’ve covered society’s asinine attitude about that more than once before, and specifically in regard to medical marijuana.]

One lesser but still important pot-related action happened just this week in Vermont (Vermont!), where the governor signed a bill making it the ninth state to legalize marijuana effective July 1, 2018.  The difference is that Vermont was the first state to do it via legislation, rather than by a voter-approved ballot initiative.  That is a big deal, and the first admission that states want to grab the tax revenue.

Regarding that one thing standing in the way of ‘tipping point’ actualization…..we currently have an old white male dominated (Republican) party in charge of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government, along with an old white guy U.S. attorney general that thinks marijuana is evil.  That means marijuana, for now, will likely maintain its federal designation as a Schedule I drug along with things like heroine and LSD – good grief.

These will all need to be changed before the pro-cannabis world can truly take over.  It’s only a matter of time, however, and that time is much shorter than it seemed only a few weeks ago.

A Candidate Guide, Circa 2016

With the first-in-the-nation caucuses only days away, Iowa is once again in the national political spotlight.  It’s time for my quadrennial assessment of the remaining candidates (here's the 2012 version), in alphabetical order by party:

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton
The good: She’s easily the most credentialed to be president.  The bad: There’s something unlikable about her quest for political power, even after reinventing herself as a senator and cabinet member.

Martin O’Malley
The former governor of Maryland seems smart and likable enough, but he definitely picked the wrong cycle to run for president.

Bernie Sanders
Every four years, it seems there’s a grandfatherly-looking candidate with an unusual message who sparks an interest with younger voters.  The last time, it was Republican-Libertarian Ron Paul.  This time, it’s Democratic-Socialist Bernie Sanders.

REPUBLICANS

Jeb Bush
All that PAC money, all that name legacy, and he’s seems to be getting no traction.  Maybe we have had enough of the Bush family in the White House.  He just doesn’t stand out in this field.

Chris Christie
Not the best bedside manner, but that’s a net good, it makes him look less Washington-insider.  He won’t do well in Iowa, but he could do well elsewhere.  Also: Must lose more weight, America doesn't elect unhealthy-looking presidents.

Ted Cruz
Take a ring-wing whack-job who’s disliked by his own party, and add support from Iowa’s own resident whack-job congressman, Steve King.  This is how you identify the Republicans’ potential Iowa caucus winner.  (Has it really been 2+ years since I wrote this?)

John Kasich
Probably the Republican candidate most appealing to independents, someone who seems to understand that governing is a compromise.  Unfortunately, that means it will be tough for him to win.

Rand Paul
Younger folks like him, but his mostly libertarian message isn't getting the traction it did when his father, Ron, ran in 2012.  Interestingly, he can partly thank Bernie Sanders for that.

Marco Rubio
Youth, intelligence, ethnicity, and likability are in his favor.  He could win the nomination, but if he goes too far to the right to do it (a la Mitt Romney), he’ll have a hard time being elected president.

Donald Trump
He’s the Frankenstein’s monster created by the Tea-Party Republicans, and now they can’t control him.  I still predict he’ll eventually ruin his reputation(?) along with the Republicans’ chances of winning.

Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum
Thanks for visiting Iowa!  Now go home, and stop trying to make a career out of running for president.

Post #300

This is my 300th blog post since I started it around six years ago.  As with post #200, let's take a look at some of what I wrote about over the past 100 posts spanning about two years:

I wrote with more practical, real life advice for high school and college graduates.

I wrote about a variety of investment issues, client-approved of course.

I wrote about how a political lackey masquerading as a university president ended VEISHEA.

I wrote more about the best songwriters and lyrics from yesteryear.

I wrote about how pop culture should start ignoring Lolo Jones, well before pop culture came to the same conclusion.

I wrote about major cities I visited.

I wrote more about taxpayers getting fleeced, and the primary non-profit fleecers.

I wrote about how medical doctors are self-centered, not patient-centered.

I wrote about what turning 50 years old meant to me, in a mostly non-philosophical way.

I wrote about a variety of ways that people / politicians / governments refuse to accept the evolution of social issues, such as how dumb it is to oppose both medical marijuana and decriminalization of marijuana, and how dumb it is to allow 2,000+ year-old religious doctrine control all of their secular decisions.

I wrote a little bit about a lot of other things, all in the name of getting things off my mind.

Non-representative Democracy

One of the reasons the United States is the greatest country in the world is our governing system of representative democracy.  Too bad it doesn't always work that way.

When is a representative democracy not a representative democracy?  In Iowa, the answer is when it comes to legalizing medicinal marijuana.

This week, a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 70% of adult Iowans favor the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.  This is up from just 59% last year, and 58% the year before that.

It's over.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this issue has been decided, and Iowans are ready to follow the rest of the country into making this rational, albeit long overdue choice.

Unfortunately, Iowa's elected state legislators don't seem to be any closer to legalizing marijuana for medical uses.  Basically, we've elected a bunch of old, white, close-minded, and mostly Republican males (including the governor) who will always believe pot is evil, regardless of its proven therapeutic uses or the desire of their constituents.  They continue to use the intellectually dishonest argument that the 'unintended consequences' of legalization will lead to serious drug abuse in Iowa.  Simultaneously, they attend numerous political receptions where they, along with many others, can legally drink non-medicinal booze without a thought of the 'unintended consequences' of alcohol abuse.

Some Iowans seem to be buying that 'unintended consequences' argument, because the same Iowa Poll reports that only 30% of adults approve legalizing marijuana for recreational use, a number unchanged over the past two years.  We are still years away, or more likely, one big fiscal deficit away, from joining the few other states that have done this.

Oh well.  One thing we know about representative democracy it that it works, it's just a matter of time.  So it will be with legalizing marijuana use in Iowa and in the U.S.

2015

As with last year, let's review the things I said I'd like to see in 2014, with my new notes in ALL CAPS:

-The (continued) fall of the so-called Tea Party conservatives.
(NOT REALLY.  GIVEN THE OUTCOME OF THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THEY'VE AT LEAST HELD AND MAYBE GAINED STRENGTH.)

-Less Kanye / Less Miley.
(NO FOR KANYE, YES FOR MILEY.)

-Apple TV.
(NOPE, BUT WE GOT APPLE PAY AND WE'RE GETTING THE APPLE WATCH.)

-NCAA basketball Sweet 16 trips for either Iowa and Iowa State.
(NO FOR IOWA, YES FOR IOWA STATE.)

-Better football from the Cyclones and Vikings - the bar is incredibly low.
(NO FOR THE CYCLONES, YES - BARELY - FOR THE VIKINGS.)

-Warmer Spring weather, at least where it doesn't snow again in May.
(IT WAS DEFINITELY BETTER.)

-More legalization of marijuana beyond what's happening in Colorado on 1/1/2014.
(YES, SORT OF.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PASSED A VOTE TO LEGALIZE IT.  BUT STATES LIKE IOWA STILL CAN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO EVEN LEGALIZE MEDICINAL USE.)

-A la carte cable TV channels.  It's only a matter of time before cable providers will have to do this to compete with computer streaming.  Why not in 2014?
(NO AGAIN, ALTHOUGH COMPANIES LIKE NETFLIX AND AMAZON PRIME ARE INCHING US CLOSER TO IT.)

For 2015 I'd like to see:

Less glorification of big butts.

A Final Four for Iowa State men's basketball, and an NCAA tournament berth for both Iowa and Northern Iowa men's basketball.

More action, less inaction by the U.S. Congress.

Stephen Colbert dominating late night television, with Conan and Fallon and Stewart right behind.

Common use of Apple Pay.

Might as well go for it again -- at least medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.

A vaccine against Ebola.

A week-long vacation for me.

Iowa Election Handicapping 2014

We've got an open (non-incumbent) U.S. congressperson election going on in central Iowa, as well as an open U.S. senatorial seat and a gubernatorial race.  Time to opine on the candidates.

Congress:  Staci Appel (D) vs David Young (R)
When 'friend of John Boehner' and incumbent Tom Latham (R) unexpectedly retired to open this district seat, the major political parties were obviously unprepared.  How else do you explain these two poor candidates?  Appel is an uninspiring former state senator with an image problem, and Young is a boring, no-name protege of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.  Good lord, is it too late for me to start a write-in campaign?  I think Young wins this, because voters will prefer a boring nobody with some national political experience over a boring nobody with no such experience.

Senate:  Bruce Braley (D) vs Joni Ernst (R)
This race reminds me a lot of eight years ago, when then-Congressman Jim Nussle ran against state politician Chet Culver for governor of Iowa.  It should have been no contest -- Culver was a buffoon.  But the anti-Republican fervor was too much that year (George W. Bush was mismanaging Iraq and Afghanistan) and Nussle didn't try hard enough.  Culver won, and proved his buffoonery by being Iowa's worst-ever governor.  Here, Braley = Nussle, Ernst = Culver, and Obama = Bush.  Braley is the better candidate, but it isn't looking so good for him right now.  He needs to hope that Ernst -- a National Guard member but also someone who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed -- makes another mistake to sway independents, like reminding people that Sarah Palin endorsed her.

Governor:  Jack Hatch (D) vs Terry Branstad (R)
Multi-decade governor and certified grumpy old man Branstad will win this easily.  Make no mistake, it won't be because he's so beloved, it'll be because Iowans would rather dance with the devil they know than with the devil they don't know.  Hatch isn't well-known outside of Des Moines, and frankly, he isn't that well known inside of Des Moines if you aren't a real estate developer.  I might vote for Hatch just as a silent protest to Branstad's stance on medicinal marijuana.

I (Religiously) Object

Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest.  The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.

As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy.  The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.

Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint.  I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate.  And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women.  (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)

However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism.  While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.

So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling.  While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate.  While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.

Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business.  The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around.  Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay.  (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)

Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance.  If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid.  (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care.  But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)

Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic.  Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform.  Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.

Getting School-ed Again

This week, the local Community Section of the Des Moines Register reported that my school district, the Johnston School District, ended its most recent fiscal year with a $2.1 million budget deficit.  A huge screw up by administration, right?  Heads are going to roll, right?  I mean.....um.....hold on.....I'm being told in my earpiece that apparently the school board thinks it's.....OK?

Said the school board president, "I think my takeaway would be these (numbers) look OK.  But we wouldn't want them to go any lower.  We'd really like to turn the direction around."

Now you might be thinking, give them a break, there are understandable one-offs now and then.  After all, the article said the shortfall is partly the result of having to pay over $800,000 to implement and purchase textbooks for a new math program.  If you're wondering, there was no word on whether giving everyone an iPad made a difference.

The thing of it is, besides the unanswered question of why that math stuff wasn't already budgeted for in the prior year, this is no one-off.  This is the second time in the last 4 years the school district has exceeded its budget.  And this is the group that's going to be in charge of building a brand new, multi-million dollar high school.

I guarantee that if something like this happened in the for-profit world, there would be VERY serious consequences.  Budgets would be immediately slashed, as would jobs. Who knows, there might even be a going-out-of-business outcome.

But in the not-for-profit, governmental world, backed by the unlimited deep pockets of taxpayers, there is no panic.  According to the article, the soon-to-be retired school superintendent offered no specific action.  The district finance director said that, other than deferring the purchase of new social study textbooks, perhaps next year they'd have to maintain current staffing levels without increases.

Gosh, don't sacrifice too much.

As a taxpayer, I'm on the hook for this spending and mismanagement, but unfortunately, I have no choice nor power to invest my money elsewhere.  Sure, I can vote for new school board members, but the problem is the governmental model, not the people running it.

Unless school districts, or other government entities, face consequences for overspending, it's just going to continue.

The Paranoid Truth

I don't spend much time on Facebook.  I'm not out there always updating my status, or posting pictures of my kids, or my food, or my kids eating food.  But every once in a while, I feel compelled to comment on someone else's status, especially strange ones.

This week I had an exchange that I enjoyed enough to blog about.  It all started with me replying to a comment from a friend-of-a-friend who was complaining about pot laws, but then suggested our government allowed us no more freedoms than that of China.

Here's the entire exchange, verbatim, with no fact checking.  Watch the other guy's paranoia (and the ALL CAPS) elevate:

ME
Hey [name], what color is the sky on the planet where you're living? If you think China is a more tolerant and free society and treats its citizens better than the U.S., go over there and smoke weed and complain about their government, and post how that turns out for you. Might be difficult since you won't have free or uncensored access to the internet as you obviously do in the U.S., but that's OK, China doesn't allow computers in the prison camp you'll be working in the rest of your life anyway.

HIM
William have you been to China? YOUR GOVERNMENT tried to pass CISPA/SOPA, AND PASSED NDAA, HR347, National Defense Resource Preparedness Act. You KNOW nothing of China but what you are TOLD to THINK. Why are you talking about China again? A TRUE PATRIOT is pro-people and questions their out of control government.

THEN HIM AGAIN
It is more so people are to distracted or brainwashed by the TV which is CONTROLLED information. If people can use Facebook then they can use the WORLD WIDE WEB to educate, inform, and research stuff the TV tells them. 90% of the mainstream media is OWNED by 6 corporations tied to banks and the war machine. I WISH people would instead of vomiting misinformation or ignorance BUT instead go to Google, A SEARCH ENGINE and read about it or watch educational films.

ME
I'm guessing brown...the color of the sky on [name's] planet is brown, the same as it is in Beijing because their government enforces no environmental laws either. You should live there, I'm sure you won't have to worry about the government controlling the information or what you think. At least that's what I read on the internet.

HIM
William why are you talking about Beijing? How many times have you been there? This conversation is about wanting a better future for our country. You can love your country WITHOUT loving your government. The founding fathers LOVED America that is why they fought to set the foundation we are letting to shit. So while patriots talk about wanting to preserve the Constitution, the law of the land that many died for you talk about Beijing. I have found lately when people bash the direction this country is headed people say things like racist, Bush or Beijing?? Are you trying to change the subject? WILLIAM if the TV told the world was flat, would you research it? Would you question it? Would you talk about Beijing? OH, and who said the world was brown?

ME
Hey [name], read the comment thread. I'm talking about China (and the sky in your world being brown) because you suggested we had no more freedom in the U.S. than they have. You might want to Google 'Tiananmen Square' sometime and start getting up to speed. You apparently have no idea what freedom is. No one here has a problem with those who responsibly question their government, it's essential to its operation and that's why it's done and even encouraged. But if you did the same in China you'd get a visit from someone in a uniform and/or tank, and no one would ever hear from you again.

I didn't get a reply to that.  I'm certain he would have, but I suspect he had to crash after being up all night smoking dope and eating Doritos.

I love how the guy is convinced the internet is the source of all accurate information.  No wonder he's on Facebook all of the time.  That and the fact he clearly has no job.  I still 100% support decriminalizing pot, but no one who turns into a full-time delusional stoner ever amounts to anything.

Getting School-ed - Update

As expected, the JCSD bond referendum passed yesterday by a relatively narrow margin on its second try - needed 60%, got 66%.

Also as expected, today I haven't heard a single satisfied supporter profess that they will no longer complain about unnecessary government spending and taxing.

Hypocrites.

Getting School-ed

On June 25th, for the second time in nine months, voters in my school district, the Johnston Community School District (JCSD), will be voting on a $41 million bond referendum to primarily build a new $81 million high school.  Unlike the last time, it'll probably pass, and if not this time, then there will be another time.

That's still no reason to vote yes.

As with virtually all such tax increase proposals that require voter approval, I heartily oppose this one.  I'm not denying that there may be a current / future overcrowding issue in some school buildings, but I am denying that it should take $112 million of taxpayer money to solve that.

(There's one of the many head-fakes that voters get on deals like this - the bonding covers $41 million, but other taxpayer funds / levies will cover the other $71 million.  That equals $112 million of our money, and I tabulated that without needing a new school facility to help me do it.)

If you want to know all about the referendum, and how the money will purportedly be spent, and the estimated cost to property owners, there's plenty of electronic or print information available, of course paid for by us JCSD taxpayers.  But if you simply want to know about how ironic-to-borderline-dumb it would be for Johnston school district taxpayers to support it, just read this:

1) After failing to pass the referendum nine months ago, JCSD changed the bonding amount from $51 million to $41 million - but not by cutting anything, only by deferring the $10 million to other taxpayer funded pools.  In other words, they cut absolutely nothing.  They apparently take us taxpayers for fools.

2) The $112 million doesn't include some very large ancillary future expenditures that are admittedly part of the long-term plan, such as a new football stadium.  You know, for educational purposes.  Are we just supposed to forget about that little item?

3) Voting to increase your own taxes is never a good idea.  Let's face it, it's a little bit crazy.  It's a lot crazy when you consider.....

4) School districts are often poor stewards of our money.

5) Given the current and future age of technology, what sense does it make to build expensive, huge, new brick-and-mortar schools?  Shouldn't we be planning on ways to bring classrooms to students via on-line and digital means?

6) More than a decade ago, with the support of JCSD, our own Polk County passed a local option sales tax (LOST) to increase sales taxes from 5% to 6% for a 10-year period to fund new school infrastructure.  That was the deal, ten years only.  Liars!  Less than ten years later, they and every other school district were already lobbying to extend the time, and ultimately in 2008, the state of Iowa simply went to a permanent 6% sales tax.  Why should we believe anything the JCSD tells us now about taxes, when they had no problem lying to us taxpayers a few years ago?

7) Did I mention that school districts are often poor stewards of our money?

Here's a final thing that gets to me about this goofy referendum - it's being largely supported by a very Republican-leaning district.  These folks want to tax others to benefit them and or their school children, regardless of whether those taxpayers will receive any direct benefit from the school.  In other words, thousands of folks who claim to hate the so-called socialistic ideology of the Obama administration, seem perfectly willing to support this socialistic measure.  It's another example of how some people only oppose taxes and government spending unless it's good for them, and they ought to be required to forfeit their Obama-bashing cards.

Fellow citizens of the JCSD - don't be duped!  A 'no' vote doesn't mean you oppose education, it means you support not letting others unnecessarily spend your money.  The tax-and-spend monster that is JCSD doesn't need to be fed, it needs to be starved.  We can do far better with far less than over $100 million.

Post #200

Since July of 2009, I've been writing random thoughts out in this blog.  This is post #200, so just as I did with post #100, let's review some of what was covered in the last 100 posts, or basically the past two years.....

I spent a little time writing about the importance of certain singers and song lyrics.

I spent some time writing about finance and investing, which is the work I do for a living.

I spent a good deal of time writing about politics, particularly in 2012 as related to the presidential election.

I spent a bunch of time writing about people who are dishonest, how to identify them, and calling them out.

I spent too much time, but will probably spend more, writing about the moral hazards of religion.

I spent a lot of time, and will definitely spend more, writing about how taxpayers are being shafted by people in government who make selfish decisions.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

There are many iconic phrases given to us by the novel/movie Forrest Gump, e.g. "Run Forrest, run!" or "Life is like a box of chocolates."  The one that I've been pondering the past few days is, "Stupid is as stupid does."

I've never been quite sure what that phrase means, but I can think of at least one recent instance where it fits perfectly.  That is, in the case of last month's fake 'debate' in the Iowa legislature over medical marijuana.  (Yep, this in another blog post on the topic of pot.  Only the enlightened should continue reading.)

A legislative subcommittee just held a hearing on the topic of medical marijuana, which a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll revealed is supported by a majority of Iowans.  That didn't stop the old white man who chaired the meeting from starting the hearing by saying, "Doing any bill.....that would legalize marijuana would be one of the stupidest bills that's ever been passed by this organization.  There is no reason to legalize medical marijuana."

Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

Before the hearing, I wonder how many legislators or their family members got their day started by taking an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, or anti-pain medication, or some other kind of mind altering drug?  And after the hearing, I wonder how many legislators went to one of the nightly lobbyist-sponsored receptions and had an alcoholic drink or two?

I'll bet the answer is, "Lots of them."  But please ignore the man behind the curtain, we have an intellectually dishonest argument to make.  Society has determined that legalizing those other mind-altering substances is perfectly fine, even though they may be addictive, routinely abused, and lead to dire consequences for other people.

Stupid is as stupid does, for sure.

So we won't even have a real debate about controlling and legalizing medical marijuana.  We will merrily go along another year in Iowa, not only ignoring the incontrovertible organic health benefits of marijuana for some, but also spending millions on anti-pot enforcement and criminal incarceration for others.  Iowa allows gambling, Iowa allows gay marriage, but somehow the social conservatives here continue to beat back progressives on medical marijuana.

Maybe Forrest Gump's mom can explain this to me, because he also once said, "Mama always had a way of explaining things so I could understand them."

"And that's all I have to say about that."