Why I Will Vote "YES" on California Proposition 15 in June

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance opened my eyes to the inequities of campaign finance with the act of making it anything but equitable. It's been apparent for some time that the voice and contribution of the "average Joe" has been lost in the impact of the big dollar donors. And with this loss, we have seen a stagnation in the legislative process, not only here in California, but in Washington as well.  Why? My thinking is that to a certain extent the large donors cancel each other out.  For every cause, there is an anti-cause, or a group that will be negatively effected by said cause and wants to impede it. For every Big Business, there is a Union, or a Coalition, and vice-versa. With Legislators beholden to these various organizations for campaign donations, they can't really annoy too many groups, or they will have no chance at re-elections. So in order to do what is right by their constituents, they tend to do little or nothing so as to offend the fewest possible donors. Additionally, Legislators spend a considerable amount of their time campaigning or soliciting donors for contributions rather than doing what the voters put them in place to do.

One need only look at the U.S. Senate, or the California legislative process to see the net effect of this.  Yes, one can point to procedural issues, but at the heart of it is campaign dollars.

Something must clearly be done, but what? The Shumer-Van Hollen Bill may be a very good start on the National level if passed as designed, but here in California we have the opportunity take a different approach to the problem. Specifically, the California Fair Elections Act, or Proposition 15.

Proposition 15 is a pilot program that will create an optional public finance option for candidates for the California Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018. It will allow for candidates showing sufficient popular support levels to receive public funds for their campaign and set stringent rules around campaign finance disclosure.

Why is this a good thing?

1. Candidates that receive public funds will no longer have to solicit donations, and will no longer be beholden to large organizations, which will allow them to focus on their jobs, and not their campaign donors.
   
2. Candidates taking donations will have to disclose the amounts and sources very quickly so that the public will see where their interest lie.
3. A pilot effort allows us to see how the system will actually work in practice, and, if needed, adjust it.
4. The California program is modeled on other programs that are working in other states.
   

Why the California Secretary of State?

1. The California Secretary of State is in charge of two really important things: they are the Chief Elections Officer, and they are responsible for electronic filing and publishing of lobbyist information.
2. After number one, does there need to be another reason??

If we really want to bring the legislative process back in line with what the voters who put them into office want; if we really want to break the deadlocks that plague the legislative process; and if we really want to curtail the influence of well financed special interests, than we really have to implement public campaign financing. 

Please join me by volunteering, donating, or just showing your support on Facebook.

Dems and GOP Unite versus SCOTUS

It seems that very few people like the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations-foreign and domestic the ability to contribute directly to Congressional campaigns. According to this article on Politico.com Republicans are not entirely happy with the decision either, with 56% of them falling into this category.

Therefore it's time to take action.  One alternative is The Fair Elections Now Act. This bill should level the field enormously, and give true "grass roots" candidates a chance against "big money" politics.

There are other alternatives.  One of those being considered is forcing corporations to have a shareholder vote on whether or not funds should be given to a specific campaign or not.  This only makes sense given the SCOTUS' assertion that a corporation is just another form of public assembly.  Let the public assembly vote on how their money is spent.

Another alternative being bandied about but not being taken too seriously at the moment is the concept of a Constitutional Amendment that would "fix" what the SCOTUS has done. I'm pretty leery of this path, as it's almost irrevocable, and it would need to be REALLY well thought out, and, well, Congress isn't doing too many things that are really well thought out these days.

Regardless of which path you think is best, I urge you to write your Congressman/woman and Senators and urge them to get to work to resolve this issue before the campaign season gets into full swing!

Will Studen Loan Reform Start the Complete Corrpution of Congress

Everyone thought that student loan reform was a legislative gimme. Billions of dollars are given to banks to make risk free loans to students.  This program could easily be assumed by the Federal government, and the amount lent would increase and students would get more money, and the world would be a better place.  Obama mentioned it in his State of the Union Address, and it just makes sense.

HOWEVER, the banks are squealing.  They want their free money. And what are they doing? Lobbying.  Hard. While they are going through all of the "traditional" lobbying motions, one thing that the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  decision and sitting down with our Representatives and Senators and saying, "We want this bill killed, and we are prepared to help your re-election effort significantly if you are willing to play ball with us.  However, we are just as willing to help your opponent if you feel the need to pass this bill.  Think about it." Do they even need to be that explicit??

Is this "Free Speech"? I don't think so.  If you agree, write Congress and/or your Senator and urge them to do something to close this hole that the Supreme Court wrought!

In the meantime I'll keep an eye on this legislation and see how it moves along.

Obama's Contradictory Policies on Crime

Before I start, let me make something clear: I'm normally a fan of Obama's.  I donated to his campaign, and I voted for him.  I support and defend his policies for the most part.  The part here is one that I don't support.

There are two interesting stories being covered these days, one well known, and the other not so well known.  The first, has been going on for over 30 years.  John Demjanjuk has been in one stage or another or being prosecuted, convicted or acquitted for being a guard in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II. [Before I go on -- I don't care if he is or is not guilty of any of the crimes charged.  It's irrelevant to the point here.]  The Israelis have acquitted him, but the US government has stripped him of his citizenship, and is making every effort to deport him to Germany where he will be charged.

In more mainstream news President Obama announced that he would not prosecute CIA officers that were involved with torture as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at that time.  Also, it's important to note that "...nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." 

So now we have an interesting position here on the part of the Obama Administration.  On one hand, they seek to prosecution for an individual who comitted his allged crimes 65 years ago, and was certainly "following the legal advice at the time," as the laws that he "broke" were not invented until WWII was almost complete as the Napoleonic "crimes against humanity" was pulled out of mothballs to provide a legal basis to decapitate the Axis powers. Hundreds of Axis officials and soldiers were imprisoned or put to death on this legal basis. Juxtaposition this with the concept that our CIA officers were "only following orders" and should not be prosecuted. Furthermore, they should not be prosecuted because what they did happened in the past. [huh??]

Someone please explain to me how the Obama administration plans to prosecute future crimes!

Do not think for a minute that I equate what happend at the camps in Nazi Germany, and what some of those guards did there, to what our guards and "interrrogators" did. What the Nazis did was heinous and horrible, and  However, if you don't look too deep, the situations are remarkably similar.  In fact the CIA knew, despite the "legal opinions" that what they were doing was wrong, as they had to deal with the FBI at arm's length.

So if we are to be a nation laws as President Obama says we should be, then lets be a nation of laws.  Let's not allow the scapegoating of a few officers and enlisted personnel of Abu Gharib to stand.  Let's go forward and shine the light of truth into the murky corners of the hidden CIA torture chambers. We should show the world that the United States is a nation of laws and that we will try and convict those responsible for breaking them, whatever their crime, whenever they did it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Luddites Raid Wash. Post Editorial Page

It's pretty shocking what some people still think. Today, two university professors published their Luddite Manifesto on medical records.  Succinctly, their argument is that since there have been issues with software in the past, and since you can't prove that medical records software can save lives, then all efforts to implement such software are a waste of time and money and that we would all be better off sticking with paper records.

It's as if the last 25 years of history has not happened.  The computer revolution, which has changed the lives of the majority of the world in one way or another has not occurred.  The fact that data sharing has had a major impact on business and commerce has not occurred.

To support their argument, the two authors cited failures or issues with some systems that have been implemented. Most of the systems cited in the article seem to have been designed to diagnose symptoms or prescribe drugs automatically. Given that doctors themselves have problems doing this for more complex cases, it should be little suprise that initial systems developed to do this work do not work as well as hoped. 

I've had experience with this "paper records" system, and it stinks.  Let me tell you a little story.  Unfortunately, I've got a few health issues.  I have several doctors, all of whom treat me for different things.  Despite the fact that I have signed releases, none of them have my complete medical records.  They tend to request them "as needed", and then it takes a couple of days for the records to be copied and sent over. While this system may work for regular checkups and treatment, the one time it won't work is in the Emergency Room.  Fortunately, every time I've been to the ER I've been upright and coherent. I disclose my pre-existing conditions, and I'm asked (repeatedly) what medications I take.  I'm asked repeatedly what I'm allergic to.  All of these pieces of information are usually relevant to treating me and making sure I remain upright and coherent. And, in my experience, the doctors and nurses have always been able to give me excellent care, as I am able to provide them with all of this information. In fact, the last time I went to the ER, I took the liberty of typing up a list of my meds so that there would be no questions (more paper records).

What if I were not upright and coherent?  I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but I can't imagine how not having my records available to consult before treatment would be boon to the doctors.  Furthermore, what if I was away from home and went to the ER in a non-upright and non-coherent state?  Given my health issues, I'd hate for the doctors to have to start guessing what's wrong with me given a lack of information!

I have to say that I find it quite shocking that someone in this day and age would write such an article, and even moreso that the Washington Post would publish it.

Outstanding Article Regarding Economists' Role in the Crisis...

The Economist's View today posted an excellent link to a paper which has caused a good bit of discussion there and rightfully so.  The post, entitled "The financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics" is simply an excerpt from the conclusion of the document includes this ditty:
Paradoxically self-reinforcing feedback effects within the profession may have led to the dominance of a paradigm that has no solid methodological basis and whose empirical performance is, to say the least, modest. Defining away the most prevalent economic problems of modern economies and failing to communicate the limitations and assumptions of its popular models, the economics profession bears some responsibility for the current crisis.

What makes this paper topical is the current financial crisis, but it cannot be said that this is the first time many of the topics and the general concept of classical economics being out of touch with reality has been broached.  The Real-World Economics Review has as its origin a discussion and petition in France in 2000 regarding how and what is being taught in economics classes. Another site, with more frequent updates, is Real World Economics.

In brief, real-world economists argue that the equalibrium based, economics of maximized utilization is fundamentally flawed.  The thinking stipulates rational behavior and models this mathematically. These models assume a "normal" state of equalibium, which of course cannot be representative in the world we live in, or the people we deal with.  Changes are considered "shocks" or "jolts" which after they occur will simply lead to a new equalibrium. Hence, using this type of methodology, most classic economic thinking has been broken down into economic models, which as suggested above provide questionable utilization.

This particular fact leads us to a fundamental question: "If this methodology of studying economics yields such poor guidance, is it an economical use of our time to pursue this methodology?" 

The "real world" economists don't yet have a cogent theory of their own as they are still in a bit of a self-exploratory phase, however the trait they do posses is the ability to unflinchingly criticize their own thinking.  I'm not convinced we actually will see a theory any time soon as we still grapple with predicting human behavior on a large scale.

While I am not convinced that economists could really have prevented the current crisis, I certainly believe that they could have sounded an alarm that might have caused political figures to look into the housing market and associated financials.  However, even Greenspan believed that the system would sort itself out.  Furthermore, the Bush administration was quite business friendly, and would have been rather adverse to anything that might have slowed down the housing boom, particularly considering that the housing market was driving what little expansion there was in the economy at that time.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Financial Mess--Who's Fault is It?-- Part Two

[This is part to of my explanation of the current financial crisis and reasoning behind who I believe the real culprits are for our current financial situation.  Enjoy and feel free to comment.]

Big Bank would then be the Secondary market. While Big Bank certainly can sit back and collect the payments on this loan, they have other motivations and decide to package this loan up with a group of other mortgages, and sell it.  This product it called a Mortgage Backed Security.  In this case, they sell the entire MBS to Bigger Bank. This then becomes the Tertiary Lender. Bigger Bank has some really sharp people on it's team, and they therefore have a more diversified portfolio of securities to offer their customers including something called a Real-estate Mortgage Backed Collateralized Debt Obligation (RMBCDO or just CDO for short).

Big Bank's team takes a number of MBS and bundles them together, and sells them to a paper company specifically created for this purpose (a Special Investment Vehicle or SIV). This SIV will then issue a Bond just like any other company. This bond is given a qualitative rating by one of three major ratings companies, Standard & Poors, Fitch's or Moody's.  Other people and companies can then purchase this bond and expect a certain fixed rate of return for their money over a specific period of time with a known risk level (the reason for the rating).

Several types or organizations would buy these CDOs, particularly those with a AAA rating.  Banks, hedge funds, investment houses, and even mutual funds would buy these.  This was a secure investment, with a fixed rate of return that nicely matched certain types of investment strategies. The real estate market had been booming for years, and there was no reason to assume that anything would change any time soon.

It is through this process that money from private investors eventually made its way back down to the individual to fuel the housing boom and price bubbble.  There was only one thing that this model did not account for.Technorati Tags: economics, banking, real estate, CDO, crisis,

Powered by ScribeFire.