Quote of the Day
The way of the world is to praise dead saints and persecute living ones.
Poor Side of Town/Johnny Rivers
From a pro-liberty perspective, I am suspicious of government intervention in the COVID-19 crisis. I have a somewhat nuanced position as a minarchist libertarian: I do think there's a self-defense argument in protecting communities against public health issues; this is one of those positions I share with AnCap icon Walter Block on grounds of the non-aggression principle (e.g., a vaccine mandate): you do not have the "right" to impose your disease on me. The infamous case of asymptomatic "Typhoid Mary" Mallon is particularly relevant; she was primarily a cook (for wealthy families), in a state of denial over her disease, with bad hygiene habits (not regularly washing her hands). Now outlining a libertarian approach on handling the COVID-19 crisis is beyond the scope of this essay; we generally prefer decentralization of government authority and regulatory reform to engage the private sector, robust expression of scientific and medical communications, and a more nuanced, risk-based approach to public policy (e.g., protection/isolation of at risk populations): no blanket travel bans, shutdowns, mask mandates, etc.
Now don't get me started on Trump's failed management of the crisis. Keep in mind a central theme behind this essay is that Presidents have very little constitutional or other authority or ability to do much of anything, and both Trump and Biden are utterly incapable of managing whatever limited authority they do/would have.
Trump's scientific illiteracy and superficial, sloppy, incompetent, self-serving, impulsive analysis, judgment and decision-making are beyond dispute, and other libertarians like Tom Woods piss me off when they accept Trump's attempt to rationalize e.g., his idiotic spitballing how we should be working on drugs that handle COVID-19 as well in the body as deodorants and UV lights work on viruses outside the human body; this was as profound and original as a primary school kid asking her Dad if Clorox works so well on hard surfaces, why can't we inject it inside the human body? Trump was on the stage with career scientists trying to assert his relevance because of his massive, fragile ego, and the poor scientists are trying to figure out how to tactfully respond to an unexpected batshit-crazy question from a guy who probably last looked at biology in high school (and almost surely didn't earn an A).
After the outbreak of H1N1 (swine flu) and Ebola during the Obama Administration, why didn't voters take into account Trump's relevant idiotic tweets and foresee the possibility of his inept leadership in dealing with an even more serious pandemic? I don't know. Why did he allow Bolton to reorganize the pandemic response team in the federal top-heavy bureaucracy with the Ebola crisis still fresh in people's minds? I don't know. But it's excruciating reading a Trump tweet that said effectively, if an American medical volunteer leaves the country to battle an international health crisis, lock the door behind him. America, you got the "President" you voted for. His embarrassing tweets were a harbinger of what has transpired this year; nobody should be surprised.
The one no-brainer thing to contain the crisis was to rapidly ramp up testing to diagnose asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals. Not only did the government monopoly (with its not-invented-here mentality) bungle the crucial initial rollout during the crisis on Trump's watch, but he perversely tries to verbalize that testing has distorted the crisis as more serious than it is, and he lies about international comparative statistics. Listen, dude: we have less than 5% of the global population and a MULTIPLE of that (like 4 or 5 times) the cases and/or fatalities. Now, unlike the Democrats, I don't hold Trump responsible for relevant American statistics; you might argue his travel restrictions were too little, too late, too inconsistent, but the states under our Constitution (Tenth Amendment) are responsible for health security, and Democratic governors and mayors in particular implemented Draconian policies and try to scapegoat Trump for their economic illiterate and ineffective policies.
There is some scientific evidence that early travel restrictions can help mitigate the scope of the pandemic's spread, but is Trump's snake oil claim that "When I did China, it had never been done before. I was the first one to do it...We’re the ones that gave the great response, and we’re the ones that kept China out of here. And if I didn’t do it, you’d have thousands and thousands of people died — who would’ve died — that are now living and happy," correct? No. At least 38 countries had implemented sooner or around the same time as the US. ("We did not include 12 countries, such as Japan, that took some sort of action before the United States but with measures that were not as sweeping. Japan, for instance, barred travelers from certain regions of China, not the entire country. Some other countries, such Bangladesh and Myanmar, simply suspended visas on demand for travelers from China.")
Furthermore:
The New York Times calculated that at least 430,000 people arrived in the United States on direct flights from China since Jan. 1, including nearly 40,000 in the two months after Trump imposed restrictions. Moreover, screening proceedings of travelers from China have been uneven and inconsistent, the Times said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21 announced the first travel-related case of novel coronavirus in the United States. Trump unveiled his plan 10 days later, making the restrictions effective Feb. 2. (On Jan. 17, the CDC had begun health screenings of passengers on direct or connecting flights from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak.) ... U.S. citizens and permanent residents could still travel from China but were subject to screening and possible 14-day quarantine
Between the first official report of an outbreak in China and the announcement of U.S. travel restrictions, more than 40,000 travelers from China were estimated to have entered the United States. Scientists believe the virus likely emerged and began circulating a month or more before it was first recognized in China, which may have allowed it to spread beyond the countries where cases were initially recognized.... Until Feb. 27, no other travelers to the United States faced such travel restrictions and quarantine requirements — even if they were arriving from other nations that were reporting coronavirus cases....In the early days of the U.S. epidemic, testing was restricted to people with a travel history to China, which limited the ability to detect locally the cases and infections among travelers from other countries.
40,000 US residents were repatriated from China, with screening described as cursory or lax... It is also possible that the virus entered via nearby Vancouver, British Columbia, which is closely linked to both China and Washington State.
Quote of the Day
Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.The Last Train to Clarksville/The Monkees
Quote of the Day
I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.96 Tears/? and the Mysterians
Reach Out, I'll Be There/Four Tops
Quote of the Day
Cherish/The Association
I was enjoying last night's World Series' game 5, when one of the idiot announcers started ranting about the Astros' cheating during their 2017 championship run. It was in terms of discussing starting pitcher Clayton Kershaw's World Series record; the Dodgers have won 3 of the last 4 NL pennants, losing the 2017 and 2018 Series. The announcer was speculating how much better Kershaw's record would have been if the Dodger had played in a fair Series with the Astros
The speculation is that the Astros stole catcher signs to the opposing pitchers using a camera planted in the outfield stands and would audibly signal to the batter which pitch is coming (the pattern was alleged trashcan banging to signal a curveball; I guess they figured the other team couldn't steal their trashcan bangs. #sarcasm). Each pitcher has a limited number of pitches, e.g., fastball, curve, slider, changeup, and/or others. Part of the duel between the pitcher and batter is the uncertainty of pitch selection. For example, the availability of a changeup could affect a batter's timing against a fastball specialist.
Stealing signs is part of the history of the game. For instance, a runner on second might be able to see the catcher's signs, see the pitcher's grip on the ball, etc., and somehow tip off the batter. The general opinion is that this type of "natural" intervention is limited in scope and not the same as the unwarranted use of technology.
As a baseball fan during my high school and college years in Texas, I followed the Astros and in fact to the present, I've only attended a small number of Astros' home games in person as a paying fan, mostly when Nolan Ryan was their ace. (I'm really a Twins' fan, a story I've mentioned multiple times in the blog, which put me in an odd place when the Astros eliminated the Twins in this year's first round.) To those of us who have followed the Astros for years, while the Astros were part of the National League, the 2017 World Series win was the first in the history of the franchise, and in essence the effort to dismiss a hard-won, 7-game series on speculation over the nature, extent and/or effectiveness of alleged cheating is outrageous, and I wrote multiple tweets and posts on this topic months back.
First, let me point out roughly half of the games including the seventh game of the World Series in question were on the road, without this alleged home field advantage. The Astros had a slightly better road record than home record. I don't see any reason to conclude the alleged sign stealing improved the Astros' performance or that the home performance was inconsistent with the road performance. In fact, the Astros have been in the ALCS for 4 consecutive years, twice winning the AL pennant without any evidence of said misconduct extending beyond the first year. Houston simply has a talented roster.
Second, I read an LA Times piece that mentioned that rumors of Astros' sign-stealing had reached the Dodgers before the World Series. Now the very first thing I would do if I suspected the opposition knew my signs would be to randomly rotate/change my signs across, even within innings. The alleged cheating is only as good as the valid interpretation of the catcher's signs. And unreliable tips from the dugout could adversely affect batting performance.
Third, there are a lot of nuances to pitches. It's not just the type of pitch, but the speed, location, rotation, etc. I mentioned in a prior post it's one thing to know the pitcher is coming with a 100 mph fastball; it's quite another thing to hit it. Some batters have known issues with curveballs, may have issues with certain parts of the strike zone. Opposition research knows about it; the pitcher may have his own history of encounters with a batter, what works and doesn't. And pitchers make mistakes, e.g., a hanging curveball. A similar thing goes on with scouting or observing pitchers. For example, a pitcher may be having trouble getting his curveball in the strike zone today. His go-to pitch may be his fastball. Similarly, there may be a go-to pitch on a full count.
There is no requirement for a catcher to call a game. There is no requirement to use signs.
Finally, at least some data scientists, like Robert Arthur, have parsed the trashcan data compiled by Tony Adams who analyzed every 58 home game on video of the 2017 season by pitch and trashcan bangs. Up to a third of the alleged pitch calls were wrong, especially with runners on base, and related batting performance was significantly below average, whereas for correct calls aggregate batting average was only a few points higher without any increase of on-base percentage. Arthur concludes any benefit from purported stolen signs was negligible at best, certainly not worth the risks of getting sanctioned from the baseball commissioner who had warned clubs of consequences.
For the unfamiliar reader, the title of this essay is a play on words on one of Biden's favorite words for "rubbish". SNL made a drinking game of Biden's use of the term in their spoof of the final Presidential debate last week.
Biden's proposed ObamaCare expansion should be no surprise. The House Democrats in the 111th Congress fought tooth and nail for a public option. While on the surface it is a middle ground between Comrade Bernie's backdoor nationalization Medicare for all "solution" and the status quo, it is de facto interim step to nationalization, i.e., a government monopoly. On the face it maintains a façade of a mixed public/private market, so it doesn't do away with politically popular job-based healthcare insurance, but let's be clear: this isn't fair competition. If you're a private insurer, you cannot survive long-term in a low-margin business, and neither can providers, where you are competing against a monopoly with over a $26T debt and climbing, a competitor which sets/does not negotiate prices.
A key issue is hospital costs. About two-thirds of hospitals lose money on government-program patients; overall, Medicare/Medicaid payments cover only about 87 percent of patient costs, while private insurance plans pay up to 145%, making up the difference. With many (especially rural) hospitals being pressed by dwindling private sector patients, any shift of patients to below-cost government reimbursements could lead to significant hospital closures; a smaller supply of hospitals has obvious implications on competitive pricing and exacerbate the unsustainable price spirals in the private sector. It's increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to take on government program patients with excessive paperwork, regulations and lower, delayed reimbursements. Biden's plan would also reportedly allow lower-income workers to opt into a likely lower-cost public option premium, co-pays, deductibles, etc. (unlike ObamaCare, which may not provide subsidies to employees with healthcare insurance options at work). Obviously a lower number of insured policyholders undermines the insurer's scale in negotiating with providers. In the long run, employers may simply decide to capitulate to exploding benefit costs and point employees towards the public option plan.
That is why Biden's public option "reform" is a slippery slope to nationalization with its inevitable rationing, lower quality and availability tradeoffs, less innovation, and an indifferent, rigid, unresponsive centralized bureaucracy.
Quote of the Day
Knowing others is intelligence;
Courtesy of Steve Kelley via Townhall
You Can't Hurry Love/The Supremes
Quote of the Day
I love those who yearn for the impossible.As the constitutional attorney explains, the confirmation of Judge Barrett is not packing/unpacking. At most, it's politically opportunistic from RBG's passing. The GOP did not add or subtract the number of justices to manipulate SCOTUS for political reasons. That is precisely what the Dems are proposing to protect their pet legislation from judicial review, e.g., ObamaCare. This undermines the credibility and integrity of SCOTUS.
Sunshine Superman/Donovan
I was puzzled by why all of a sudden Twitter's "hot trends" for me were predominantly Czech. I eventually realized my new Twitter account was defaulting to my (remotely assigned) VPN IP location, and I had to toggle off a setting or two. I did have my first "viral" (>1K impression) tweet in weeks (the Tillerson tweet) for the first time in weeks, but my statistics remain in an extended slump.
#ThereIsNothingWorseThan voters who voted in Democrats who brought us Big Incompetent Government and then vote them back in to "fix" the problems they have caused.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
Just a reminder to Trump Derangement Syndrome losers: he hasn't taken a penny in salary, unlike hypocritical Comrade Bernie, who became a millionaire on the public teat.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
Nope. The left-fascist Dems brought us a "marketplace" where in many places there's only one provider, where younger people are charged higher than the cost of their health care, where insurance competition is heavily regulated and not allowed to compete, with sky-high premiums,
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
#ThereIsNothingWorseThan Democrats who voted in the incompetent, fascist, anti-constitutional, authoritarian governor of Michigan and then are "shocked" by the blowback.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
The most hilarious trend I've seen in a long time. Maybe to people who love unelected scientists in name only with a political agenda and will have their way with a gullible, uneducated hack like Biden will believe this. #BidenWillCrushCovid
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
To those of us real baseball fans who think baseball is more than outbidding other teams for talent, there is joy at the defeat of evil.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
"New York Yankees eliminated from the postseason in a 2-1 loss to the Tampa Bay Rays in Game 5"
I LOVE Maryland's Vote By Mail option. pic.twitter.com/3cu74f8q0H
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
Incompetent Trump Derangement Syndrome "progressives" really don't know what the hell they're talking about in terms of the Hatch Act. The Presidency is intrinsically political; the partisans really intend to restrict POTUS' right to political speech, which is unconstitutional.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
We need to end America' longest war. God knows that Obama/Biden didn't go anything except accumulate more casualties than Bush there.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 10, 2020
"Taliban spokesperson says they support Trump for US president and hope he will remove American troops from Afghanistan"
The morally corrupt pro-aborts are desperately trying to make Judge Barrett's personal views on abortion an issue. A judge rules on the law and the evidence, not personal.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
"Amy Coney Barrett initially failed to disclose anti-abortion talks and signing of a 'right to life' ad"
Presumably COVID-19 is SuperTrump's kryptonite.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
Superman
I was watching OU/Texas (my alma mater lost in overtime) today when I saw a shot of some of the crowd in attendance. Say what? Granted only a fraction of capacity but it's been months since I've seen fans at a sports event under the COVID-19 crisis.https://t.co/25n5eiVI9M
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
Democrats could not only take Georgia next month but also its 2 US Senate seats. They have a special election for the vacating Senate seat which requires a majority to win without a runoff. The good news is Trumpkin Collins probably won't make runoff.https://t.co/07cx4IJ7K7
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
My latest post includes an exchange with a prominent Trump-defending libertarian on Trump's nonsense on COVID-19, including his suggestion that something analogous to a household cleaner could help treat COVID-19.https://t.co/rz5LEfqQxN
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
Let's remind people that pro-abort Biden, a self-professed Catholic (in name only), takes a position that the Catholic Church has consistently opposed since the Didache.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
The Taliban fought against Obama/Biden for 8 years. They don't think he resolves America's longest war.
I'm making the call that Trump will lose his attempt for reelection. Biden's 12-point lead in the latest ABC News poll, over 50%, can't be made up in 3 weeks and he has statistically significant leads in too many battleground states. Trump's COVID-19 infection and debate fatal.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 11, 2020
My latest post reviews the Pence/Harris debate.https://t.co/OgKd3Qh5E2
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 12, 2020
It's sad that the Dems aren't interested in the integrity of our independent judiciary. They don't acknowledge the unconstitutionality of their pet laws like the abysmal failure of ObamaCare. For example, there were assigned risk pools in the states before ACA#SCOTUSHearing
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 12, 2020
You would think the Dems would be intelligent enough to understand what "packing the Court" means given the fact FDR attempted to pack the Court when it rightly declared some of his passed laws unconstitutional. He attempted to water down SCOTUS by adding rubberstamp crony judges
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
There are 2 reasons why the Senate Dems are trying to say the GOP is "packing the Court": (1) the GOP is making an issue of leftist threats to add seats to SCOTUS, so the Dems want to accuse them of hypocrisy; (2) Dems are referencing the declining power of Court progressives.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
Listening to Senate Dem morons try to make ObamaCare the issue on Judge Barrett's confirmation is pathetic. Judge Barrett had criticized Chief Justice Robert's patently absurd opinion that the insurance mandate penalty was Congress' tax authority. Living is a right, not privilege
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." ObamaCare is yet another government failure. If (unconstitutional) ObamaCare is ruled at such, it doesn't mean the government cannot address real healthcare reform, e.g., decoupling healthcare from employment, deregulation, etc.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
How stupid are Senate Dems? Their anti-Catholic bigotry in attacking Judge Barrett is abominable. In fact, 5 of the current 8 justices are Catholic and Gorsuch was raised Catholic. It's especially hypocritical after JFK, a Democrat, was elected despite anti-Catholic bigotry.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
So we have had a Catholic majority SCOTUS since Sotomayor. Have we seen a rollback of Roe v Wade? No. was "gay marriage" outlawed? Catholic Justice Kennedy I believe wrote the majority opinion. These positions are not consistent with Church moral teachings. So why an issue?
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
Nothing like the double standard of Dems' attacking Judge Barrett's Catholicism while backing the Catholic (in name only) Joe Biden, who would become the second Catholic POTUS. So why didn't these hypocritical bastards attack Biden? Who would be directly involved with policy?
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
Joe Biden has demonstrated that he is mentally incompetent and unfit for the Presidency. He has argued that the nomination of Judge Barrett and her confirmation are "unconstitutional". He has obviously never read the Constitution or American history: 17 similar confirmations.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
Trump, Biden, and other political whores are always hyping their elections as the "most important, consequential ever". Well, yes, from the prospect of their attaining the position in question. But political whores don't solve problems; they are the problem.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 14, 2020
The Senate Dems' attacking Judge Barrett for criticizing Chief Justice Roberts' opinion arguing the individual mandate was a tax, not a penalty, is hypocritical because a penalty is not a tax. The Dems wanted everyone to comply and not pay a penalty; taxes are used to fund govt.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 16, 2020
My latest post takes on the Senate Dems' totally political attack on Judge Barrett's nomination to SCOTUS.https://t.co/7rVipHQesM
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 20, 2020
My issue is not with Steele's decision to not support Trump; it's with his decision to support Biden after over 40 years in DC. That is unjustifiable.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 20, 2020
"Michael Steele"
Oh my God. I can't believe after the past 6 years, people take Trump's sales hype and braggadocio seriously. I'm sure Exxon loved Trump's treatment of their former CEO Rex Tillerson, Sec. of State.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 20, 2020
"Exxon responds to Trump’s hypothetical fundraising call: ‘It never happened’"
The Trump Administration is not only economically illiterate but technologically, too: antitrust action against Google fundamentally is incompetent and an abuse of power. https://t.co/OibE0RDPST
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 20, 2020
My latest post reviews the final Trump/Biden debate.https://t.co/dyPjOdGxah
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 23, 2020
The only ones worse than neo-con Sen. Graham are Trumpkins like Dobbs and Democrats.
— raguillemette (@raguillemette) October 24, 2020
"Lou Dobbs"
Quote of the Day
We didn’t build the Mac for anybody else.As in the case of the first Trump/Biden debate podcast, where the eventual posting to Youtube lagged, at the time of this post, the podcast is not on Woods' Youtube channel, so I'm posting an audio player clip
Summer in the City/The Lovin' Spoonful
My prior posts on the 2020 general election debates: Trump/Biden 1 and Pence/Harris.
A brief summary: this was a much improved debate, in terms of topics, professional demeanor, quality and performance by the participants. I think the preannounced mute buttons probably helped, and the moderator (Kristen Welker) did a better job than Chris Wallace did in controlling the debate. This was easily the best debate performance I've seen from Trump (the 2016 GOP primary debates and this year's; I still have not reviewed the Trump/Clinton debates). He seemed much more disciplined, muted, and better prepared. I did think the questioning in general tended to favor Biden (climate change, minority neighborhoods near polluting businesses, systemic racism, and an emphasis on the COVID-19 pandemic and recession economy).
Let me repeat that I would have preferred to see Jo Jorgensen in the debate. That being said, I evaluated the debate in terms of strategy and in terms of points
From the standpoint of strategy, Trump, who is behind in the polls, really needed a knockout punch or Biden having a meltdown, something that might catch the attention of voters on the fence, maybe even sway soft support from Biden. He didn't get that, and I think his own campaign's attempts to portray Biden as all but senile, gaffe-prone, etc. left Biden with a low hurdle to clear, with Biden easily turning in a reasonably competent, engaged performance. Clearly Trump hoped to provoke Biden with accusations of corruption, especially with respect to his son Hunter. But Biden was prepared and largely shrugged off the expected attacks. I do think Biden missed an opportunity to turn the tables on Trump, his illegal hold on Ukraine aid to force a politically motivated investigation. On Trump's part, he came close but didn't quite reference the ethical issues involved in a conflict of interest posed by Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma. (Among other things, the US was investigating the oligarch (Mykola Zlochevsky) who owned Burisma. You don't want the perception that the oligarch was buying favors from the US government by hiring Hunter Biden, particularly given VP Joe Biden's role in Ukraine relations. I believe that there were those in the State Department who raised concerns.)
On points, I hate to say this because I almost completely disagree with Biden on policy, but I felt Biden was generally more articulate, specific and detailed in his responses, while Trump was more predictable and resorted to his usual bluster and braggadocio. To give an example off the top of my head, Trump repeated that he has done more for blacks than anyone since Lincoln. Seriously, dude? Like landmark Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's which outlawed segregation in public places and discrimination in hiring, plus related voting reforms, which among other things opened the way to more black lawmakers in the South and eliminated race-oriented public policy restrictions in voting? He also claimed that he had done more for blacks than the Obama/Biden Administration in terms of the justice system (commutations, etc.) Biden was prepared for this and returned Trump's serve for a winner, rattling off commutation numbers that dwarfed Trump's purported efforts. I did think other parts of Biden's defense were more hypocritical like blaming the opposition Congress for lack of progress. The fact is that Obama had a supermajority 111th session of Congress, which Trump never had, and control of the Senate for his first 6 years. Trump lost the House in his mid-terms and so the same excuse could be used by him (and was in his discussion concerning Speaker Pelosi).
In my more specific discussion below on topics, I may do like in my VP debate spin off separate pro-liberty takes in inset red-type paragraphs.
I believe, like in the case of race relations, the moderator didn't really break new ground here. I think the intent was to get the candidates to be specific about what they would do to lead in the crisis starting with the next inauguration given the assumption we are still battling the pandemic in January.
Trump basically argued more of the same, that his strategy is working; he points out that some models had projected millions of deaths, he argues his travel bans, e.g., from China, lowered the severity of the pandemic, that they had turned the corner on, e.g., the production of ventilators, which were in shortage at the beginning of the crisis and we are near the corner on producing and distributing a vaccine. He once again tried to scapegoat China for the pandemic, argued that government experts like Fauci have vacillated on practical issues like face masks. He pointed out high casualties in blue states like NY. He once again tries to argue that testing has distorted statistics. Some personal shots, like Biden riding out the pandemic in his basement, and Trump argues that Biden has been inconsistent on travel bans and said that Biden argued the restrictions were xenophobic policy.
Biden basically argued that Trump is not providing states and businesses with the funding they need to safely reopen (e.g., to put up plastic barriers between workers/students, etc.), that he didn't react quickly enough to news of the pandemic, has impulsively and prematurely pushed for reopening, as early as Easter. He dubiously suggests a national face mask mandate and responds to Trump blue state attack by pointing out red states (like the Dakotas) are spiking in the ongoing third wave. He says that Trump's approach isn't working, that we're back to over 1000 deaths and over 50,000 or so cases daily.
A few points to make here. First of all, in our federal system, health regulation is primarily the responsibility of states. A President's role is fairly limited constitutionally. I expected, but Biden did not argue that reorganization of the pandemic response unit occurred on Trump's watch, that the FDA and CDC botched initial testing rollout, and earlier testing could have helped contain the pandemic. The spread of the virus had more to do with returning American tourists who obviously were not properly quarantined. According to experts, travel bans may temporarily slow but not stop the spread of the disease. Second, Biden's suggestion of throwing money at the problem is not only fiscally irresponsible but ineffective, sets false expectations and is morally hazardous. Schools are a state/local, not federal responsibility. I would have liked to see the debaters look at how federal regulators and government monopolies impede the private sector from responding, e.g., in testing, like South Korea managed to do. The shutdown policies at the state/local level were too broad, e.g., job sites may not be hotspots for infection. Biden's willingness to consider another shutdown and to implement an unconstitutional face mask policy are worrisome.
Given foreign relations are a key Presidential responsibility in terms of trade and diplomatic relations, I welcomed this segment but found the moderator's discussion fairly superficial and politically motivated (do we need yet another discussion of Democratic talking points on "Russian election interference"?). So in this segment, I will merge my pro-liberty perspective in discussion.
On trade, both Trump and Biden are protectionist and economically illiterate. For some reason, Biden never pointed out TTIP or TPP, which were pursued under Obama and trashed by Trump; TPP doesn't even include China in the region, so the US departure is arguably counterproductive to our influence in the region. Biden asserted China must play by the rules, wasn't clear how he would deal with China vs. Trump on specific policy differences; he didn't really address the fallout or blowback from "Tariff Man"'s policies. Trump falsely claims "China" (not American citizens) paid his tariffs and claims credit for paying farmers relief from tariff proceeds, not pointing out that this was retaliation for his unilateral tariffs on China. Trump's tariffs were not only counterproductive but at the expense of American consumers paying higher prices. Biden responded that the trade deficit has expanded during Trump's tenure; neither Trump nor Biden understand the concept of a trade deficit.
We saw a brief skirmish on Biden's criticism of Trump's undiplomatic relations with traditional allies, while Trump takes credit for higher defense spending by the same. As a libertarian, I have concerns about a bloated defense budget and foreign entanglements.
No discussion of the fact we still have troops exposed in the Gulf Region, including Afghanistan.
On the election interference talking point, no discussion of the hypocrisy and fact of US involvement in foreign elections. Biden basically complained Trump has been AWOL on the alleged domestic vulnerability issue (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) Trump responds that he has been very tough on Russian sanction and counterattacks Biden has taken foreign money. Biden argues that effectively Trump has a pay to play scheme, e.g., do business with Trump hotel properties. Trump brings up Hunter Biden.
There is some discussion of whether Trump's relationship with the North Korean dictator has been productive given North Korea's ongoing missile program; Trump sees his approach as an improvement over Obama/Biden's.
Bottom line: both Trump and Biden oppose free trade, support economic sanctions and are military interventionists with nuanced differences.
We already know Biden believes the RBG replacement should be decided by the election winner and Trump's position is that it is his and the current Senate's responsibility to fill the vacancy. So the question was more like what's to become of ObamaCare, say if SCOTUS with a prospective Justice Barrett strikes down ObamaCare? What about coverage for those with preexisting health concerns? And complicating things further, what about COVID-19 exposure which may ultimately become a long-term health issue?
Biden thinks that the GOP is trying to sabotage when they repeatedly failed to do in Congress, repeal and replace. He points out Trump still hasn't fleshed out his own healthcare proposal; he may talk covering preexisting conditions but where's his plan? He proposes a "public option", wants to enable Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices.
Trump takes credit for eliminating the unpopular individual mandate and dismisses Biden's proposals as socialized medicine.
Biden faults Trump and the Senate GOP for bottlenecking COVID relief. Trump takes credit for signing into law prior COVID relief while blaming Pelosi for the Congressional stalemate. He doesn't want to bail out Dem-controlled cities and states. There's a related squabble over minimum wage; Trump sees it as a state issue and notes that raising the cost of labor is counterproductive in a recession. Trump also tries to link blue state fiscal issues to the costs of supporting unauthorized aliens.
Both Biden and Trump favor federal involvement in healthcare, and there are all sorts of issues with prior COVID-relief, including in many cases people making more money in unemployment than at their regular jobs. Biden's public option is a de facto interim step to nationalized healthcare. Seriously, what company can compete against a government which operates $28T in the red?
Biden condemns the Trump Administration policies on unauthorized migrants, including the cruel family separation policy, not to mention the targeting of Dreamers (unauthorized foreign-born residents who entered the country as children). Trump accuses Biden of hypocrisy, arguing the Obama Administration were the ones who built the camps in question and also separated some families.
Biden has the better argument. Trump's family separation policy was unprecedented in nature or extent, although some separations did occur under Obama. But the fact is Obama did not prioritize immigration reform in the 111th Congress; the Dems only moved on Dreamers after they lost the first midterm, and Obama's Dreamer executive action was unconstitutional, not originating in Congress. The Dems have generally opposed immigration reform based on constituent labor union protectionism.
I would have liked to hear more discussion about qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture, occupational licensing reform, etc. Prosecution of victimless crimes is abominable, and imprisoning a disproportionate number of Americans (and blacks making up a disproportionate number of those) is morally unacceptable.
Trump clearly has the better argument here. I'm surprised that he didn't challenge economically illiterate Biden on clean nuclear power or the various scandals like Solyndra under Obama.
Quote of the Day
An author is a fool who,Wild Thing/The Troggs
Slow but steady transition back to normalcy at work. Technically I work at a government facility but have been working remotely and technically haven't been in the on-site work location. I live fairly close to one gate, but no in-traffic during the COVID-19 crisis. Only a few weeks back they allowed outflow for the evening rush hour. So there is another local (main) gate but basically I need to drive a horseshoe shaped route through downtown which adds several miles and maybe another 15 minutes to my commute.
[It sort of reminds me of high school in south Texas. I lived at family housing at the local AFB. The high school (and nearby junior high down the road) were about a mile west from the base entry. But the intervening land was owned by a local rancher. The rumor was the government wanted to build a road directly to the school, but the rancher wouldn't negotiate an acceptable price for the easement, so the buses had to do a multi-mile horseshoe workaround through the local city. Sometimes we had to wait for buses to drop off kids from a first pass in the afternoon. A few of us used to hike through the ranch, rather than wait the 20-30 minutes for another bus; I think the first time I joined one or 2 others, but mostly in the dozen or so times I did this, I was by myself. The ranch was like a Texas stereotype, full of cacti, an occasional skull, and the ominous rattles of rattlesnakes. (I'm not sure what I would have done if bitten. But I think we as young people felt invincible.)]
It looks like they'll finally open up the more convenient gate for inbound traffic next week for the first time in months. Plus, my own workgroup, which has been working remotely, will start transitioning back to work on-site within a few days, at first the same one workday per week. So our team lead circulated a cubicle plan that alternated cubicles, presumably for social distancing. Now part of the point of bringing up these specifics is because of the relevant group discussion. The local protocol is to wear masks, at least when walking outside one's own cubicle. But one colleague seemed desperately worried about the prospects of catching COVID-19 from the rest of us. Dude! Even with 8.2 M cases (and keep in mind at least some of the initial cases were inferred without testing), that's less than 3% of the US citizens. Now, granted, many more people could have been infected and don't realize it with mild or no clear symptoms--and they can spread the disease during their two-week or so . It might be there are unusual circumstances behind the colleague's worry: maybe his household has a member with high-risk factors, say an elderly parent or a child with a fragile immune system.
The latest from Washpo: it does seem we are in an uptrend, not yet what I consider a surge per se, but most days over the past week are 57K or above; what makes things worrisome is we are heading towards flu season (yes, I've already taken my shot) which may also be a contributing factor to hospital utilization rates
One of the annoying things this election season is somehow the GOP has discovered my cellphone number, and I've been getting unsolicited texts from WV, SC, and AZ. I last cast a vote as a Republican in the 2016 SC primary, intending to support Rand Paul, who had already withdrawn from the race. I then voted for Cruz, mostly as a protest vote against Trump. I officially left the GOP when Trump clinched the GOP nomination. I don't think SC recognized the Libertarian Party, but Arizona did. And I left Arizona over 3 years ago. The WV ad was something like "Tell Manchin to vote for Judge Barrett's confirmation." I'm like, "Dude, I haven't voted in WV since 2014." I mentioned in a prior post that a Congressional candidate in my old SC district (or maybe her staff) had contacted me to do some campaign work (putting up signs, etc); I thought she was running for my Maryland district. But far the most prolific and annoying was been McSally, the incumbent running against Kelly, husband to Gabby Giffords, former Congresswoman, victim of gun violence. There are all these personal attack ads on Kelly; let's be clear: if I were still living in AZ, I would not be voting for Kelly. But let me be clear: McSally has been a little too Trumpkin for my tastes, and I really don't like personal attack ads. But, for God knows what reasons, I've gotten many texts from Democrats trying to register me in Arizona. I have no idea why they think I must be registered in AZ, but I have gotten flyers from AZ sent to my current MD address. (Maybe they think I'm in the military?) As for Democrats trying to recruit me, isn't that cute? Not a chance. Of course, I can always block them if they get too annoying.
I did publish a recent tweet saying basically Trump is done. Multiple negative events, including his disastrously unprofessional first debate, his getting infected with COVID-19 along with his unpopular handling of the crisis and his irrational decision to pull out of the second debate; he's behind in virtually every national poll by an average of over 7 points. He needed those last two debates more than Biden, but he refused to do a remote for the second debate, even while he was still infected. (I think he didn't like the fact they could cut his feed if he continued interrupting Biden.)
Now Biden had stretched his lead to almost 10 points, but almost everyone expected the race tightening a bit. I've been some polls showing a tie or leads within the margin of error in Iowa, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. RCP had Trump taking back Ohio after earlier polls, but in the no-tossup scenario Biden is still swamping Trump with about 350 electoral votes. Trump isn't competitive in any Clinton state, so Biden is starting out with almost 230 votes and needs 270. Just to give an example, Texas has 38 votes and a recent poll there has Trump and Biden in a tie. If Biden wins Texas, he just needs one more Trump state, and not only does Biden lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania with statistically significant leads but RCP has AZ, FL, NC, IA, and WI leaning Biden, and Biden has clear shots to upset in TX, GA, and OH. So now Trump is having to play defense; maybe he can stave off a Biden landslide with a run of close races in the South. In the meanwhile, Biden has a huge campaign chest to take the fight to Trump in Trump's own 2016 states. But remember Trump's 304 electoral votes in 2016 were a 35 vote margin (over 269). This means if Trump lost Texas alone, he wouldn't have won the Presidency.
Now are there "shy Trump voters" misleading pollsters? Perhaps but unlikely. And of course it depends where Biden's votes are coming from: Biden doesn't need 60% of the votes in California, New York or Massachusetts to win those states. But the problem is that Trump has serious issues with women voters and has had almost consistently poor job approval numbers (I can only remember one week all term where Gallup had a net approval rating). Biden is roughly at parity favorability rating while Trump is more like 11% under. But I don't think that Trump will improve over the GOP's loss of the House in 2018. His highest winning issue has been the economy and we're still in a bad COVID-19 recession. And nothing demonstrates Trump's ineptitude in managing the COVID crisis like catching the disease himself.
Maybe some day, once Trump is safely out of office, I might explain how I would have handled the cards he's been dealt, but it's utterly absurd that his has ZERO plans for a mandate agenda, other than getting him for 4 more years. He's still trying to make Biden the issue. That ship has sailed.
Really, Trump's last gasp is tonight's debate. Trump is so shallow and incompetent he'll predictably try to go after Biden personally. All Biden needs to do is to keep his cool and let Trump burn his own bridges.
RCP also sees the Dems narrowly winning control of the Senate.
Quote of the Day
Tommy James & the Shondells, "Hanky Panky"
I realize this is coming a full week after the hearing in question; in part, I decided to expand my discussion beyond what I originally intended.
Familiar readers know that the trigger that led me to leave the Democratic Party as conservative young man was the sabotage of the Bork nomination. The disgraceful personal attacks on Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh (after I left the GOP) validated that decision.
"Hell is paved with good intentions." We libertarians tend to read something with a different twist into the idiom: legislation with well-intentioned goals and/or even a politically contrived gimmicky name: who can object to "fair employment" or "affordable healthcare"? Surely only heartless, amoral, corrupt, selfish monsters would oppose an "I love mommies and puppy dogs act" (this is how I characterize these typically progressive legislative bills).
I eventually migrated to more of a conservative skeptic of government, as I saw LBJ's war on poverty ultimately stagnate and fail, creating a permanent underclass of entitled government dependents, a dysfunctional war on drugs (also note stupid foreign entanglements, public education deteriorating in our urban centers, and 101 other things). I started looking at legislation in more detail and questioning the need for government intervention in markets; what were the unintended consequences, moral hazards? Regulations and mandates as well as taxes increased costs in the private sector; quite often these have disparate effects on smaller companies and have the effect of reducing market competition, innovation and/or availability of goods and services. Various "temporary" fixes, like taxes and tolls, tend to become permanent and create dysfunctional self-serving inflexible bureaucracies.
Government intervention in healthcare has been extensive and beyond the scope of this post, and I want to suggest that the issue leftists are using to promote ObamaCare, the principal ideological weapon being the hyped "pre-existing condition" coverage, which I'll discuss shortly; but to a large extent, this is an artifact of government policy. In a free market. buyers and sellers engage in voluntary exchanges. Sellers of healthcare services, unlike the federal government. cannot run at a loss in the long run. But public policies like community rating (i.e., you cannot charge more costly policyholders higher premiums) undermine availability. However, pre-ACA, you could buy insurance for the risk of developing a preexisting condition (at a fraction of the cost of typical insurance). Tying healthcare to jobs, a direct result of government policy, exacerbates the uninsured problem since even temporary COBRA coverage is more costly at a time when the household has less disposable income.
So let me give an example from personal experience. Other than for my weight, I've enjoyed good health most of my adult life. I've had jobs (all providing coverage) where I never saw a doctor and never even chose a personal physician available to my plan the entire duration of my job up to a few years long. During the Great Recession, I remember getting sticker shock at what COBRA would charge--almost the amount of my monthly rent. So health insurance is different than rent. You get the use of your apartment every day of the month. But I might see a doctor every few months and the a la carte cost of a doctor visit might be, say, $150 (vs a $750/month premium).
I looked at the individual market, which offered lower-costing policies than COBRA, when my job prospects in the short term seemed marginal at best and I had no unemployment or other income. And the main motivation I had was to control the risks for developing catastrophic, high-cost conditions like cancer. But as soon as I entered my height and weight, I was immediately rejected (and the premium was much more than than a doctor visit per month). I would later find out my BMI was higher than their cutoff. They sent me a follow-up explanation, suggesting I consider the MD assigned risk pool program. (I never did that, although I recall the risk pool premium, more than double the individual plan premium, was at least $100-150/month cheaper than my most recent COBRA offer would have been. I would have been willing to pay more than the individual policy premium I had applied for.) So, to stretch my savings, I did without coverage, and paid my assessed ObamaCare penalty/"tax" under the Obama Administration. By the time the Trump Administration waived the mandate coverage after 2017 tax reform, I have had continuous coverage, either job or COBRA.
The relevant point of my story was the availability of an assigned risk pool, basically a state program, had the practical effect of limiting my private sector options. And we see similar types of things happening after ObamaCare went into effect, with some studies showing the largest providers reducing charity care allocations on average going down by up to 20% or more with surging revenues. Michael Cannon has pointed out tradeoffs in quality for high-cost insured (e.g., restrictive network and prescription coverage, limited enrollment period) under ACA, never mind sky-rocketing deductibles, premiums, and less competition in the federal "marketplace": so much for "affordable healthcare". Unnecessary high-cost mandates (including "free" services) and regulatory overreach have had perverse effects on cost-effectiveness.
And, to an extent, you can understand the position of the insurance companies, especially in a rigged ACA marketplace: no one wants to be the preferred vendor of money-losing policyholders. The basic assigned risk pool concept is to separate and subsidize coverage for high-cost patients, funded by say a surcharge on policies overall, and so the costs are spread more evenly and do not depend on a company's underwriting proficiency.
I'm not going to do a comprehensive history on the federal government's failed intervention in the healthcare sector over the past but just a brief summary of points I've posted earlier in the blog:
alcohol and drug abuse, chemical dependency, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), Alzheimer’s disease, angina pectoris, anorexia nervosa, aortic aneurysm, aplastic anemia, arteriosclerosis, artificial heart valve or heart valve replacement, ascites, brain tumor, cancer (excluding skin), cancer (metastatic), cardiomyopathy/primary cardiomyopathy, cerebral palsy/palsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic pancreatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, coronary insufficiency, coronary occlusion, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, dermatomyositis, diabetes, emphysema/pulmonary emphysema, Friedreichs’s disease/ataxia, hemophilia, active and chronic hepatitis, HIV positive, Hodgkin’s disease, hydrocephalus, intermittent claudication, kidney failure, kidney disease, and kidney disease with dialysis, lead poisoning with cerebral involvement, leukemia, Lou Gehrig’s Disease/amyotophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), lupus erythematosus, disseminate, and lupus, malignant tumors, major organ transplant, motor or sensory aphasia, multiple or disseminated sclerosis, muscular atrophy or dystrophy, myasthenia gravis, myocardial infarction, myotonia, paraplegia or quadriplegia, Parkinson’s disease, peripheral arteriosclerosis, polyarteritis, polycystic kidney, postero-lateral sclerosis, psychotic disorders, silicosis, splenic anemia, True Banti’s syndrome, Banti’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia and disease, Stills disease, stroke, syringomyelia (spina bifida or myelomeningocele), tabes dorsailis, thalassemia (Cooley’s or Mediterranean anemia), ulcerative colitis and Wilson’s disease.
Individuals with five common conditions – arthritis, asthma, high cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity (BMI > 35) – were included in the second [insurers'] measure, as were individuals who had “ever been” diagnosed with arthritis, asthma, high cholesterol, or hypertension. These conditions were found to result in a denial, an exclusion of coverage for that condition, or a higher premium for individuals in all but one of the seven underwriting guidelines we examined.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the inspiration for Barnett’s book, Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power....
Barnett is surely right that deference to a democratic majority should not supersede a judge’s duty to apply clear text...a judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a “tax,” interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy.