November 2016 Unemployment Numbers

No matter which side of the aisle you're on, this is good news for all of us.  But, given that it's an NPR promotional piece, it should be viewed with moderated optimism.

In order to have a legitimate recovery...one in which less fortunate Americans participate...we have to add between 225,000-250,000 jobs per month.  That's not a Rick Number...that's what the current administration said when they pushed for the $700,000,000...which grew to 1Trillion+... stimulus package in 2009.  So please view the 178k adds in that light.  Additionally, the raw number isn't adjusted for seasonal hiring, though the rate is.

And, as others have pointed out, for political reasons the administration still seems slow to acknowledge, and focus on, our fellow Americans who have become so discouraged that they have resigned from the labor force, and those limited to PT roles though they seek FT employment.  They compose the more important (IMO) unemployment metric known as U6.  Of the estimated 0.3 improvement in Nov. unemployment, fully 0.1 of that drop is attributed to our fellow Americans giving up...226,000 of them.  Compare that to the 178,000 new jobs created and you get a more detailed picture of what's happening.  (The numbers seem off because some folks move from the U3 group to other groups 'short' of the U6 category)  And while it is true that U6 includes individuals who have 'retired' earlier than we anticipate, and that could be a great thing depending on the circumstances, there's another number we should weigh when we talk about our economy - the number of Americans receiving means-tested transfer payments ('welfare') in order to make ends meet.

We have 79 federal means-tested programs that fall under the 'welfare' umbrella, so it's nearly impossible to determine exactly how many Americans fall in the category, but the most reliable numbers I can find are somewhere between          90 -100,000,000 people.  That includes all ages.  It doesn't include anybody who is receiving State or local 'welfare' but not receiving Federal.  My guess is that number is insignificant, though.  It also doesn't include anybody receiving 'entitlement' programs like SS retirement and similar benefits individuals paid into over their working career.

Again, falling unemployment is a good sign.  Just remember a LOT of people aren't seeing the benefits of the recovery.  And a LOT of people are only getting by because of our social safety nets.  Safe to say some of them made up the Trumpsters who have had enough of being marginalized by what they see as a corrupt system.

Reducing Prescription Medication Costs

It's a well worn, but still accurate, mantra that we in the US pay the highest prices in the OEDC for brand-name medications (non-generics).  And the most often offered opinion is that we do that because, unlike other OEDCs, our federal government doesn't negotiate price for Medicare.  (It does for other federally funded programs like the VA, DoD, PHS, IHS and the Coast Guard.)  If that's the case - that we could pay rest-of-world prices if only the Feds could negotiate directly with Big Pharm - then the solution would seem pretty simple...let the Secretary of HHS negotiate on behalf of Medicare recipients.

For a detailed explanation on why simple maybe wrong please read what the Congressional Research Service had to say on the Pros and Cons of Medicare negotiations.  (Spoiler alert - "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at the request of congressional leaders, examined the effect of striking the “noninterference” provision and estimated that it would have a negligible effect on federal spending.  Similarly, the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) concluded that giving the Secretary the ability to directly negotiate prescription drug prices might not produce additional savings over what private plans negotiate.")


Here's another option - tax the exports.

Allow the HHS to negotiate, on behalf of ALL government agencies, price with manufactures.  That is the federal government will negotiate with pharma for a set price for their medications, and that price would be the same in all situations in which the federal government is the majority payer.  In exchange, the federal government would impose a tariff on these same brand name medications to the extent needed to guarantee the foreign purchase price would be the "federal price" + 5%.  The manufacturer would get 100% of the 'up charge'.  The 5% would be split evenly between the manufacturer and the feds as a way to offset administration costs of the program, and the export costs incurred by the manufacturer.  If the manufacturer decides to sell abroad for a lower price in certain countries (poorer ones that can't afford the "federal price +5"), that's fine, it's up to them.  In fact, their participation in the program is completely voluntary.  If a producer doesn't want to be subject to any government pricing, that's their right.  They don't have to. They can continue to negotiate directly with the various government agencies...assuming the agency wants to work with them.  And, given that there is a constant supply of new and innovative medications in the market every year, some manufacturers may feel they have more leverage going it alone.  More power to them.

This approach gets at one of the less discussed dynamics driving our high prices...because foreign governments effectivley demand low pricing, American tax-payers, consumers and companies are subsiding those discounts.  We're paying too much for our meds because citizens in other countries are paying too little for theirs.  And that seems wrong to me.

Thoughts on Gun Related Violence

1.  Move background checks to police stations instead of at the point of sale.  If you want to purchase a firearm, or ammunition, you go down to the police station where they'll run the NICS on you. They'll also check to see if you have any outstanding warrants or are currently serving some type of criminal sentence.  Assuming they don't arrest you on the spot, and you're not on probation or parole, you'll get something showing you passed.  That something allows you to purchase firearms and\or ammo for the next 6 months.

2.  Start providing age-appropriate firearm safety education in our schools.  If we're going to teach children how to create life it seems reasonable to teach them about things that can take a life.

3.  Require manufacturers to fire every gun prior to it leaving the production facility.  Send the bullet(s) and casing(s) to the FBI along with the associated serial number of the gun.

4.  I think we'll eventually be forced into some type of gun registration data base.

Raise The Age...and keep raising it...

Today the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a call for raising the legal age to purchase and consume tobacco products from 18 to 21.  There a countless studies and whitepapers elaborating on the benefits of raising the age...primarily in increased number of years lived.  But there are probably additional benefits such as reduced respiratory issues and decreased second-hand smoking impacts.

Given what we know about tobacco products today, there's no way smokable products (as they are currently produced) would ever get FDA approval.  But, since we have millions of folks addicted to smoking, and we know how well Prohibition went over, it's not feasible to simply ban tobacco products.  But there is a workable compromise....

Starting in 2016 raise the legal age by 1 year every year.  That way anybody who is of age to smoke on Jan 1, 2016 will always have the option of smoking.  And nobody that didn't have that option on Jan 1, 2016 will ever have to give up something they had...well...legally had.  Unlike Prohibition, we wouldn't be taking anything away from anybody.  We'd just be doing what we expect the FDA to do...not allow deadly products on the shelves of our stores.

The term "gun violence" needs to be banned. It shifts the focus from the perpetrator to their weapon of choice. It impregnates independent action where none exists. It personalizes an object while objectifying a person. In doing so it allows the concept of "gun control" to attain a level of logic void of reality, swaddled in emotion and nourished with fear.

Newton's First Law of Motion should be read aloud before one is allowed to opine on violence in which a gun is used; An object at rest stays at rest...unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I own 5 firearms and have for over 20 years. In all that time not a single one of them has violated Sir Newton's law. And I don't think my guns are exceptionally well behaved - it is an immutable, absolute and unwavering fact that all 310,000,000+ guns in America are "well regulated" by Newton's laws.

I understand why those desiring more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment use the term "gun violence"...obviously if a gun is violent it needs to be controlled.  It makes for good talking points, bumper stickers and campaign speeches.  Perhaps I would hold the term in higher regard if its authors used the same logic for muggings, rapes and stabbings;  "fist violence", "penis violence" and "knife violence".

So stop focusing on the object at rest, the mechanism of hate, and deal with the unbalanced forces acting upon it.  A good start is to replace "gun violence" with "criminal violence"....at least that's based in scientific fact.

How Isolated was Ms. Clinton?

The former Secretary of State has stated, repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received classified emails on her secret burnerserver.  She also maintains she exclusively used her bathroom server, and no other one.  Which raises a pretty obvious question.  Why not?  How in the world can the USA SoS go 3-4 years without ever being sent, or needing to send, a classified email?   Just look at few of the major foreign policy issues that happened during her tenure;

• Day 2 on the job the POTUS orders all the "black sites" the CIA has around the world closed.
• Feb - POTUS signs a memo promising $20,000,000 in aid to Gaza. GTMO trials are halted. POTUS gives SOTU address to Congress. POTUS gives speech to Marines announcing his plans to pull all troops out of Iraq.
• Mar - PM of the UK visits the USA. Russia goes public with a letter the POTUS wrote and misstates what it says. POTUS sends video to the leadership of Iran. POTUS announces new strategy for Iraq & Afghn.
• April - G20 summit. N.Korea violates testing ban and fires a nuke capable missile. POTUS speaks to Turkish parliament. POTUS visits Iraq. POTUS orders release of "torture" memos and announces no prosecutions will happen. POTUS goes to Summit of Americas.
• May - POTUS fires commanding general in Afghn. Blocks release of "torture" pics.

That's just the first 3+ months on the job and, according to Ms. Clinton, she never sent nor received any classified material during her entire tenure?  Nobody in the CIA, NSA, State Department, White House, Congress, the Pentagon or any of our allies sent her a single classified email on any of the topics?

So, how isolated was Ms. Clinton?

Either she's lying about classified information or nobody trusted her with classified information. 

Minimum Wage Confusion...

Interesting interview and I think he's right in one regard. Forcing fast-food employers to pay unskilled new hires $31,200 (FT) a year is outrageous...and counterproductive.

Average starting pay at Starbucks is $9.50. Average customer spend per visit (beverage only) was around $4.30 in 2014. If the average spend went up at the same rate as the proposed MW increase (58%) the average customer would be forced to pay $6.80 for the exact same beverage(s) they purchased the day before...for $2.50 less. The quality of the product didn't go up and neither did the quantity. The quality of the service didn't go up and the wait time didn't go down. The only guaranteed change was Starbucks would have to pay new hires 58% more.

Now extrapolate that dynamic across the entire fast-food industry. An industry that has a disproportionately high lower-income customer demographic. An industry that frequently is the only restaurant option in otherwise 'food deserts'. An industry that frequently offers one of the only 'real' job opportunities for the unskilled in fly-over country and on the ends of the American loaf.

Let's be honest, the 1% couldn't ID a fast food restaurant if their limo driver ran into one. And a cursory look at McDonald's financials over the last 3 years demonstrates how fast middle-income Americans are jumping from the arches. If it weren't for the "47%", none of these FF joints would stay open long...well...maybe Starbucks. So who is going to feel the brunt of the Democrat mantra that the minimum wage should also be a 'living wage'? The poor, the lower income and those living in 'food deserts'. Probably not the folks who voted Republican in the last election.

I'm all for having a debate regarding a 'living wage' based on age, education and other employment related factors. But that's a whole lot different than legislating McDonald's starts the french fry dude at the equivalent of what a sergeant with over 5 years in the Army makes.


Dunkin Donut's CEO & Minimum Wage

ACA Questions

Just a few quickies for my liberal friends;
1.   Why do we need a mandate?  Candidate Obama attacked the mandate in both of his main rivals' plans back in 2008, HRC and JE.  Said you don't need in his plan because it would be affordable, and the reason people don't buy insurance isn't because they're cheap, it's because it currently costs too much.  Assuming he wasn't lying when he said "Obama Care" doesn't need a mandate because it would be affordable, why do we need the mandate?

2.  Why do we still have Medicaid?  Why not eliminate Medicaid and use the savings to put former participants into an exchange program?  One of the pillars of the ACA is providing coverage to those who can't afford it.   Medicaid is specifically designed to take care of poor people who can't afford insurance.  So why do we have 2 different massive programs to cover the same demographic?

3.  If a person doesn't sign-up and they go to an ER for non-emergent treatment, can the ER deny them treatment without having to worry about getting sued?  If the answer is no, it seems like the ACA will fail to achieve another one of its promised outcomes - reducing the number of non-emergent cases ending up in the ER.

Bush Lied - People Died

...is a favorite meme of the left.  Bush lied about the WMDs and thousand of people died because of it.

For the last 5 years or so I've asked the BLPD crowd a simple question and have never received an definitive response;  "When did Iraq cease to have WMDs"?

Bueller?  Bueller?  Bueller?

North Korea

Not sure what Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Commander, of N. Korea is going to do, but if I were President Obama, here's what I'd do;

Round up the Sec of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Sec of State, and hop on AF1 under cover of darkness.  Secretly fly to China (with no press pool) and meet with our appropriate counter-parts behind closed doors...total media blackout for 3-4 days.  At the end of the visit, hold a joint news conference, led by Li Keqiang, the new Premier of China.

"President Obama and I, along with our respective representatives, are pleased to provide this joint announcement:

'Leaders from both countries have spent the last 3-4 days discussing ways to enhance our economic, political and military relationship.  It is our shared belief that we have a joint responsibility to act as a stabilizing force in times of uncertainty around the world, and especially in the Asiatic region.  The people of China appreciate President Obama's eager acceptance of our offer for him to come to China.  We have accepted his gracious offer to be his guest in the USA in the near future.  Unfortunately our tight schedule does not allow for any questions at this time.  President Obama, thank you and safe travels back to the USA."

Hopefully President Obama would get Premier Keqiang(?) to go to N. Korea a few days later with this messgae;

1.  The US and Obama feel like they have to take military action.  The generals are pushing for a traditional war to make up for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama is always getting criticized for being a wimp on foreign policy...think Bengahzi.  We got Obama to promise no direct military action against you for 90 days but we're concerned he may not hold off for more than 60.  But...60 days is better than what he wanted to do next week.

2.  They have stealth drones that have already flown over N. Korea without you knowing.  In fact, we're pretty sure they've flown into our airspace but we can't prove it.  Here are some photos of your residence that they gave us.

3.  We, China, are playing an increasingly important role in international relations, something we've been striving for since 1973.  We will not jeopardize our influence, nor military, to stop actions approved by the UN Security Council, but we will try to block any unilateral action by the US.  It all depends on how far you push them.

4.  President Obama is willing to allow us...China and N.Korea...to get all the credit for deescalating this crisis.  We would like you to take the lead, in a joint news conference with us, announcing a "time out" to evaluate the current situation.  Following that announcement, China will serve as an intermediary between N. Korea and the US in talks designed to improve the situation.

5. We believe this is the best option for all involved...and the may be the last overture President Obama will make before striking.

China owns this issue in the first place for stopping the UN from completely destroying N.Korea back in 1950.  Had China not intervened, there wouldn't be a North\South Korea.  There'd be one Korea that looked like S. Korea does today.   And today they are still the most influential foreign power with regards to N. Korea.

Pro-Choice?

A recent report out of India tells of sex-selection abortions...abortions conducted because the family didn't want a girl, and mom was carrying a female fetus.  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

For my pro-choice readers, is there anything wrong with this practice?  If woman has ultimate control over her reproductive system, is it ok for her to get an abortion based on the sex of the fetus?  Since sex can be determined at about 16 weeks, and in the US you can get an abortion up to the 24 week mark with few questions asked, it could happen.  In fact, how do we know it hasn't happened?

And if it's ok to abort based on the sex of the fetus, what about the race?  What if a women had consensual sex with more than one partner in a short span of time, and they were of different races.  Could a white women get an abortion because she didn't want a mixed race baby?

Research indicates that up to 92% of all Down syndrome pregnancies are medically aborted at the request of the mother.  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803
Given the fantastic pace of medical technology, it won't be long before a host of other physical features can be predicted in utero.   I wonder if the pro-choice folks will still feel the same way.