Election Fraud

I originally wrote this on July 4, 2020, but just now noticed that I had not posted it on my blog.

If you’d like to study the issues in-depth, at the bottom of this piece I’ve listed 23 sources I read across the spectrum of positions on this issue. 

On the one hand, President Trump and Kris Kobach make exaggerated claims of voter fraud.  On the other hand, studies that suggest there is no (or insignificantly little) election fraud miss the point.  Even before I started my research, I was aware of many cases which justified concern about election fraud.

In my opinion, we clearly are subject to election fraud and should take steps to reduce that risk.  I’ve selected five risks which I rank as follows:

1)     The greatest risk relates to electronic fraud because electronic fraud has the highest likelihood of changing the outcome of the election

2)     The second greatest of these 5 risks is allowing people to collect and submit ballots.

3)     Mail-in voting is the third greatest risk.

4)     Individual in-person voting fraud has existed throughout the history of our country.

5)     Same-day registration seems unnecessary and facilitates mischief.

Note that I have left out risks such as election official misbehavior or mistakes, registration fraud, etc.  Such exposures might be more important than items on my list and should be addressed.

I’ve also left out issues that affect voting decisions but are not directly related to the voting process (such as false claims about Hillary Clinton running a child porn ring in the basement of a pizza parlor or suppressing information about Hunter Biden).

Studies that suggest that voter fraud (or a particular type of voter fraud) is not a problem suffer from the following:

a)      The Heritage Foundation has documented 1285 cases of election fraud, so fraud does occur and some of the studies failed to find known cases of election fraud.

b)     It seems clear that the Heritage Foundation data is the “tip of the iceberg”.  Most election fraud is probably never identified.

c)      The significance of election fraud is not measured by its frequency; it is measured by its impact in having changed election results and potential to change future election results and the possible reduced confidence of the public in our election process.

d)     It is prudent to protect against election fraud even if it has not occurred.  For example, I am not aware of any case of successful electronic election fraud, but we certainly should take precautions to avoid it.

I haven’t studied electronic threats and protections hence do not address them in this piece.

Generally, relatives have been able to submit ballots for voters, which seems to have worked fine.  But allowing anyone to collect ballots creates risks that seem intuitively obvious.  Solicitors (sometimes paid) have aggressively sought ballots.  A legislator who voted to allow anyone to collect ballots had a change of mind due to unintended consequences.  The ACLU makes the best case⁴ I’ve seen for ballot collectors, in this case specific to Native Americans in Montana.  There may be a way to support the needs of Native Americans on reservations without exposing our elections to so much risk nationwide.

Mail-in ballots clearly expose us to similar risks, particularly when ballots are automatically mailed to very inaccurate voter registration lists.  Sending ballots to dead people, to wrong addresses, etc. presents unnecessary risk.  A Heritage Foundation list of steps to reduce fraud risk in mail-in balloting is attached.  I have not studied it carefully, but some of its ideas seem good.  My point is that the Heritage list should be discussed in good faith so we can establish the best system possible.

Cleaning up voter lists is an important action which is legally mandated.  However, there are examples of purging people improperly.  For example, Steven Mulroy documents¹³ that someone in Georgia was temporarily removed for a missing hyphen in a hyphenated name and that North Dakota required residential street addresses, but rural Native Americans often have only a P. O. Box.  Even though someone can overcome such purges, I don’t think they should have been purged. 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution¹¹ (AJC) provides more information about Georgia’s July 2017 purging of 560,000 voters who had not voted in 7 years nor responded to a mailing, noting that the number was so large because no purging had been done since 2013.  By March 2020 (more than 2.5 years later), 87,000 had re-registered.  Most of them had not been aware that their registration had been revoked.  30,000 re-registered too late to vote in the 2018 gubernatorial election.  Of those who re-registered and identified their race, 46.7% were non-white, compared to 41.1% non-white among all Georgia voters who identified their race.  Of those who completed provisional ballots in 2018, only one-fourth were accepted.  There are now 7.2 million registered voters in GA.  My analysis:

1.      15.5% of the 560,000 should not have been purged.  (Perhaps a few more should not have been purged, but as they hadn’t voted for 7 years and did not vote in the next 2.5 years, it seems moot.)

2.      Most re-registered in time to vote in the 2018 election.  So, their votes were properly counted.

3.      Most of those who re-registered after the 2018 election probably made no effort to vote in 2018.  They generally never knew they were purged because they were automatically re-registered when they renewed their driver’s license.  Apparently no 2018 votes were lost relative to this group.

4.      So, it seems the purge did not lose a meaningful number of 2018 votes.  And, as any lost votes would not have been 100% for either party, the impact was even smaller.

5.      Unfortunately, the AJC did not report how many people requested provisional ballots.  These ballots could have come from purged voters or others.  I am concerned that some people who should have gotten provisional votes may not have gotten them.  But complaints about Republican voter suppression were focused on counties where Democrats ran the elections, chose polling places, recruited election workers, etc.  I doubt those Democrats would have intentionally denied provisional ballots to likely Democratic voters and don’t see how Republicans could be blamed for that.

 

I am also concerned that only 25% of the provisional votes were eventually counted.  It seems significant that the election commission concluded that their votes were not valid.

 

6.      Stacey Abrahms lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election by 50,000 votes²³, so it seems clear that the purge could not have affected the result.  (Note: As I was re-reading this and some sources, I noticed that Wikipedia says that Governor Kemp purged another 140,000 voters during his 2015-2019 term in office.  I have not studied that purge.)  More than 4 million votes were cast compared to 2.5 million in the previous such election, 4 years earlier.  The 60% increase in the number of votes cast is a tribute to Ms. Abrahms and her organization.  With such an increase in voters, it seems unlikely that other irregularities could have existed that dampened voting much.

 

7.      Although the election result was not impacted, the purge process was worth reviewing and has since been improved.

The ACLU describes Ohio’s practice³ (allowed by the US Supreme Court) as:

“Ohioans who don’t vote for two years are sent a nondescript postcard from the Ohio secretary of state’s office requesting a confirmation of their address. If those voters don’t respond to the notice or vote within the next two federal election cycles (or four years), they are kicked off the rolls without further notice.”

If that is accurate, the approach should be improved.  The communication should indicate that voting rights are at stake and preferably a second communication would be added.  Recognize however, that if someone gets purged and does not know that they are purged, it will NOT affect their likelihood of trying to vote and if they then learn that they’ve been purged, they can vote provisionally.

Claims that Republicans are committing voter suppression or stealing elections are frequently exaggerated, misleading, or even entirely false.  The ACLU identifies errors³ made by AR and VT.  It is not clear to me that such clerical errors justify the “voter suppression” label and the voting process provides what should be acceptable recourse. 

The ACLU writes³ that “The fact that these [CT: felony disenfranchisement] laws vary so dramatically [CT: by state] only adds to the overall confusion that voters face, which is a form of voter suppression in itself.”  That makes no sense to me.  Is the ACLU claiming that politicians in different states colluded long ago to have different laws relative to felon voting rights, possibly passed many years apart, in order to confuse felons who relocated from one state to the other?

  Georgia and Kentucky have been prominently in the news recently:

·        I discussed Georgia’s 2018 issues above.  This year, the Democrats complained about voter suppression in Georgia again. According to the NY Times¹⁷, Stacey Abrahms created an organization (Fair Fight Action) to contest purging of 100,000 voter registrations.  A judge appointed by President Obama ruled that the purges were legal.  1.075 million votes were cast in the Democratic primary, more than 3.5 times as many as in 2016 (this might not be completely an apples-to-apples comparison, but the sources seem meaningful).  Were the Republicans guilty of voter suppression?  Would suppressing the vote in a Democratic primary be important to them?  Yes, according to the Democrats, but a political science professor at Emory College concluded that the Republican Secretary of State (Brad Raffensperger) stimulated the turn-out by mailing an application for an absentee ballot to each registered voter and encouraging voting by mail. Again, the Democratic charges relate to Dekalb and Fulton counties, where over 70% of the Board of Commissioners are Democrats and the chairs are African-American Democrats. 

 

·        Kentucky experienced terribly long poll lines after the Democratic governor (Andy Beshear) issued an executive order restricting voting as a precaution due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Both Republican and Democratic politicians objected but were overruled by a judge.  Ignoring the fact that a decree by a Democrat led to the back-ups, the national Democratic PR machine (including Hillary Clinton) charged Republicans with having suppressed the vote in Kentucky.  To his credit, Governor Beshear dispelled those reports.

Voter ID: There are legitimate concerns that some voters lack ID cards.  Clearly, the solution to that problem is to help them get ID cards.  They need such cards to be able to process fundamental transactions in our society.  It does not make sense to me to undermine our ability to control election fraud because of a problem that should be fixed independently.

Concern about the lack of ID cards could also be addressed by deferring the effective date of voter ID laws, by including short-term substitutes perhaps as little as a pledge, etc.  Exempting some classes (for example, by age) might address some of the concerns, but might not be legal. 

Expanding the permitted list of ID cards also seems reasonable in some states.  I don’t know why WI did not allow Veterans Administration ID cards³ nor why TX did not to permit University of TX ID cards³.

I support expanded voting hours (evenings, week-ends and early voting). 

I’m not a fan of same-day registration, as the need is not clear and it facilitates mischief.  There are lengthy periods for registration, so why shouldn’t voters have been able to register on time?  What is the hardship imposed by having a reasonable before-the-election registration date?  Same-day registration facilitates efforts to bribe citizens to vote, as they can be found, paid and transported on election day to register and vote immediately.  Nonetheless, I am not unalterably opposed.

The ACLU writes³ “ New York requires voters to register at least 25 days before the election, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the right to vote. By forcing voters to register before the election even becomes salient to the public, it discourages people from registering in the first place.”  Elections are not salient until 3 weeks or less before the election date?  If elections are two years apart, allowing registration for 705 of those 730 days is an undue burden?  I wouldn’t object to shortening the 25-day period, but I don’t agree with the ACLU’s argument.

Our history is replete with evidence of election fraud, for example in New York City (Tammany Hall) and Chicago.  There is reason for the historical imploration to “vote early and often” and for references to “dead people voting”.

Since I’ve lived in Kansas, a nearby MO state house race was won by 1 or 2 votes (improper votes from outside the district were found to have swung the election).  ACORN was exposed in a major government-funded scandal of fraudulent voter registration.  (I am not aware that those fraudulent registrations resulted in votes, but fraudulent registrations in the hands of a politically-inspired group clearly should raise serious concern.)  To test the system, someone sent 13 people to vote in the name of other people.  Twelve of the 13 “voters” were successful in voting fraudulently.  The only one who was caught had the misfortune of trying to convince the poll volunteer that he was her son!

We can do more to protect our elections without unduly negatively impacting voter participation. It would help if our politicians and advocacy groups worked together to improve our processes instead of misleading the public in order to arouse them.

Claude Thau

July 4, 2020

Sources for more information (the numbering is NOT intended to indicate relative value).

1.      https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/voting-rights/: Excellent piece including the right to a provisional vote if the registrar does not find your name on the registration list and how to get the provisional vote.

2.      https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/  has a wealth of information, including the following subsites.

3.      https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/

4.      https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/this-law-makes-voting-nearly-impossible-for-native-americans-in-montana/  Explains the importance of ballot collection for Native Americans in Montana.

5.      https://www.aclukansas.org/en/news/kansas-aclu-introduces-election-protection-hotline-assist-voters: The ACLU has created hot lines in various languages to report voting problems in various states.

6.      https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/database-swells-1285-proven-cases-voter-fraud-america 

7.      https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud?_ga=2.242513284.705159274.1593868296-1581601644.1593868296  Data base of 1285 cases they have found.

8.      https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/FS_188_NEW.pdf: standards for mail-in voting

9.      https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

10.   https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/covid-19-and-ebola-what-we-can-learn-prior-elections  Liberia success with in-person elections despite Ebola and WI success with COVID-19

11.   https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/many-eligible-georgia-voters-were-canceled-nation-largest-purge/jRlixHpVs0I9wVQYdDjxvM/  Valuable data about Georgia’s 2017 purge

12.   https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/494649-the-voter-fraud-fraud (I sent some questions to the author, law professor Steven Mulroy)

13.   https://www.memphis.edu/law/documents/01_mulroy.pdf.  Also written by Steven Mulroy.

pp 963-968 on Good examples of overly restrictive requirements/purges

“Fortunately, it appears that the computer program most associated with these types of overly restrictive voter purges has decreased in usage in the last few years, indicating some hope that the worst abuses are on the decline.”

14.   www.dailysignal.com/2020/04/10/potential-for-fraud-is-why-mail-in-elections-should-be-dead-letter/   Lots of meaningful examples of fraud.

15.   https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/17/what-is-ballot-harvesting-and-how-is-it-affecting-southern-california-elections/

16.   https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/: “While the instances of voter fraud via mail-in or absentee ballots are more common than in-person voting fraud, the number of known cases is relatively rare.”  I added the italics.

17.   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/elections/georgia-voters-purge.html

18.   https://votingrights.news21.com/article/about/: Students engaged in this study may have started with the idea that voters’ rights were being infringed.

19.   https://www.dallasnews.com/news/from-the-archives/2020/04/14/how-absentee-ballots-and-voter-fraud-stopped-texans-from-voting-by-mail/

20.   https://www.dallasnews.com/news/from-the-archives/2020/04/14/how-absentee-ballots-and-voter-fraud-stopped-texans-from-voting-by-mail/

21.   https://scholars.org/sites/scholars/files/ssn_key_findings_minnite_on_the_myth_of_voter_fraud.pdf

22.   https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf has a long list of studies concluding that voter fraud is infinitesimal.  It argues that statistics are overstated when they include “any and all credible claims”, essentially pretending that no unknown voter fraud exists.  The list also extols studies which are obviously incorrect because they fail to report known cases of voter fraud.  This may be the most biased of the sources I read.

23.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Abrams

Voting Laws (including Voting Suppression)

 

The Republican state election laws and the Democratic federal election proposals do not address our major electoral problems and are poor laws intended to advantage their parties.

I support some of the Republican voting proposals, tolerate others and disagree with the remainder (and can provide more detail to people who are interested).  My greatest concern in the Georgia law, by far, is that it gives the State Election Board too much power.  I believe separation of powers is critical.

Democrats have reason to oppose the Republican bills, at least in part.  Because details are subtle and vary from state-to-state, it is understandable that Democrats would use a broad label to describe them.  “Partisan” would be an appropriate label.  Democrats prefer “voter suppression”.

I paused this blog a long time because some people disagreed with my concern about the use of “voter suppression”.  They provided good reasons why they felt the Republican laws would reduce votes, particularly from Democratic-leaning voters.  I needed to ponder their valid feedback and modify or clarify my thoughts.

We greatly need respectful discussion of our differences.  Concern regarding “voter suppression” would be justifiable to express in such a discussion.  I’d prefer a term that does not evoke forcible restraint, but, in a respectful discussion, all considerations could be aired.  However, I continue to be concerned because the term “voter suppression” is used to stifle debate and paint Republicans as immoral, which is the opposite of what we need.

In many cases, the same laws exist in Democratic states and have been supported by Democrats, but they are now called “voter suppression” because they have been proposed by Republicans.  Some rational people defend this disparate usage because they believe Republicans intend to suppress with these new laws, but that Democrats did not intend existing laws to suppress.  That’s an interesting distinction, but seems inconsistent with the Democrats common claim that any statistical difference is proof of bias, regardless of intent.

The pandemic triggered major election alterations, negotiated as one-time changes.  Now, when Republicans replace them with laws more liberal than 2019 laws, Democrats renege on such 2020 agreements and call them “voter suppression”.  In some cases, those one-time changes sunset, so the new law makes voting easier than it otherwise would have been.  Such considerations do not deter the Democrats because their intent is to mislead rather than to have honest debate.   (Note: I also object to misinformation from Republicans.)

President Biden leads the Democrats, calling the Republican state laws “Jim Crow”, “unAmerican”, “pernicious”, “despicable” and “sick”.  He falsely said Republican laws would “end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work” and that “there will be no absentee ballots”. Sadly Democrats know they can rely upon the mainstream media to parrot their distortions, instead of exposing their false statements.

There was a huge clamor about Republican voter suppression in Kentucky in the summer of 2020, until the Democratic governor (Andrew Beshear) refuted the claims, acknowledging his responsibility for the reduced number of polling locations.  As soon as he took responsibility, claims of “voter suppression” ceased.  Why was something considered despicable if done by a Republican, suddenly acceptable because it was done by a Democrat?

Democrats are (successfully) suppressing discussion apparently because they fear losing the debate.  For example, they know 80% support voter photo, which they oppose.  The Democratic federal voting bill, H. R. 1, had wording that required states to allow people to vote without photo ID for federal elections.

H. R. 1 (more detail available) also would require all states to allow people to collect and submit an unlimited number of ballots.  I think “ballot harvesting” is the worst election idea being promoted by either party.  It reeks of Tammany Hall and other efforts to undermine fair elections.  No wonder the Democrats want to distract attention from their bills by barraging the public with false criticisms of Republican bills.

There is a huge shortfall of courage in the Republican party as demonstrated by their support for Trump’s lies.  Whipping up a frenzy about Republican state election laws is a successful strategy to divert attention from H. R. 1 partly because Republicans have unreasonably challenged the 2020 election and misbehave in other ways.

However, there is also a huge shortfall of courage within the Democratic party, as demonstrated by not challenging these election law lies and distortions.  President Biden’s divisive election law lies are in stark contrast to his claims to want to bring us together.

I opened this commentary by saying that the above election proposals do not address our major electoral problems.  So, what are the biggest problems of our elections?

·        We have a woefully uninformed electorate.

·        Our political system encourages the election of extremist candidates rather than centrist candidates.

Our citizenry is uninformed because both parties mislead us.  Politicians are the most dishonest group of professionals in our country.  Because there are so many issues, it is difficult to determine why a candidate got elected.  Winners continually claim to have a mandate where no mandate occurred.  I don’t know how we solve such problems, although I have some ideas.  It would be good if we, as a society, tried to find solutions.

a)      We need to encourage people to question what they are told and to be open to contrary thoughts, giving such contrary thoughts careful consideration.  Instead, many of us want to indoctrinate students and bombard voters with misleading sound bites.

Our public K-12 schools and our universities should teach students to question statements.  However, school administrations at all levels have opted to indoctrinate.

b)     For decades, I have found that most political ads in contested elections encourage me to vote against the candidate sponsoring the ad.  Even if it is true that their opponent voted against a particular bill, it is important to understand the reason they did so.

Election advertising should be required to have a unique ID which would facilitate fact-checking and seeing counter arguments.

c)      We should consider restoring ”equal time” rules.

d)     Rather than not discussing politics within the family, at work, etc., we should encourage respectful discussion.  How can we learn without engaging in respectful discussion with people who disagree with us?  Doing so also allows us to teach.

Our political elections are often decided in primaries where the most extreme candidate is elected.  Then, in the main election, we have a choice between two extremist candidates.  How might we address that?

1.      The ACLU seems to have a good approach to testing reapportionment proposals to see if they constitute gerrymandering.  Reducing gerrymandering has been an elusive, yet worthwhile, goal.

2.      I’m more receptive to a third party now than I have been in the past.

3.      More importantly, I strongly favor Ranked Choice voting.  In 2018, I chose to register Republican.  In the primary, my favorite candidate was Ken Selzer.  However, I was concerned that a vote for Ken Selzer would help Kris Kobach defeat Jeff Colyer.  So, I voted for Jeff Colyer.  With Ranked Choice voting, I could have selected Selzer first and Colyer second.  Then in the main election, Kobach ran against Laura Kelly (Democrat) and Greg Orman (independent).  I favored Orman but was concerned that a vote for Orman would help Kobach win.  So, I voted for Kelly. With Ranked Choice voting, I could have selected Orman first and Kelly second.

By making second choices very important, I think Ranked Choice voting would encourage candidates to consider the attitudes of the mainstream.

4.      Many people would argue that it is important to reduce the influence of money on elections.  That issue should be respectfully discussed.  I haven’t rallied to that issue because I don’t know of a good alternative.  But, as noted, it should be considered and perhaps could be tested at a state level.

5.      The Rules of Congress can give too much power to a subset of the chamber.  For example:

a.      Bills are voted on only if a majority of the majority party favor voting on the bill.  In case this is confusing, there are 435 members in the House of representatives.  If the majority party has 220 seats, a subgroup with 111 votes can thwart legislation coming to the floor.  I’d favor legislation requiring that if a majority of the representatives want to vote on a bill, it should come to the floor.

b.      Party leaders wield power such as committee assignments to pressure members to toe the party line.

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Ten Obvious (?) Lessons We May Have Failed to Learn from the Pandemic

 Ten Obvious (?) Lessons We May Have Failed to Learn from the Pandemic

 1)     To be able to spend lots of money in such emergencies, we need surpluses in other years. 

2)     Lacking such surpluses, tax increases are necessary to repay pandemic spending.

3)     In an emergency, it is critical to cooperate with attempted solutions.

4)     We’re “in it” together, hence should work together even beyond pandemic issues.

5)     Trust in science is important but shouldn’t be distorted into demanding blind, unquestioning trust in orthodoxy and government. 

6)     Jobs are important and employers take more risks than most people realized. 

7)     Unions are important; balance of power must be our goal.

8)     The pharmaceutical industry came through for us magnificently.

9)     Avoiding evictions is important during a pandemic but confiscating property rights is damaging.

10)  The world is inter-dependent.  An “America First” plan may not be optimal.

******************************

1)     To be able to spend lots of money in such emergencies, we need surpluses in other years. 

It seems clear that the spending was very helpful even if not optimal.  But continually spending money you don’t have is destructive.

2)     Lacking such surpluses, tax increases are necessary to repay pandemic spending.

a)      a) Huge tax increases are proposed, but with $0 allocated to reducing the deficit!  Our politicians show disrespect for us by saying programs cost nothing if we pay for them.  If taxes are raised and spent, we worsen our financial situation because we’ve removed a potential source for future debt reduction.  Simple analogy, if you loan $10,000 to someone who has an asset worth $100,000, you might feel you have good collateral.  What is that collateral worth if your debtor spends that $100,000 on a trip around the world?

 b) Sadly, these programs are NOT paid for.  The government resorts to accounting chicanery to plunge us further into debt while hiding the results.  Such accounting is illegal in private enterprise and should be illegal, rather than condoned, for government.  Consider:

i)       The government has multiple Ponzi schemes, including many so-called “social insurance” programs which are hugely under-funded even using “cliff funding”.  Cliff funding anticipates that after 75 years, no one will receive benefits.  People born today would contribute all their lives, but there would be no money to pay their benefits.

ii)      The government does the equivalent of check-kiting, e. g. using Medicare cuts to support the Affordable Care Act, then using the same cuts to claim Medicare is now better funded.

iii)    It uses Medicare cuts to “fund” other programs, planning to reinstate the Medicare cuts later.

iv)    The government institutes programs intended to be permanent but pretends they will be canceled after a few years.  In doing so, it sometimes determines the price tag for [3] years of benefits and funds it with a revenue stream over the next 10 years, claiming that it is fully-funded.

v)      The government creates programs with back-ended benefits, then counts the income in the next 10 years without setting up reserves to cover benefits to be paid beyond 10 years.

vi)    Etc.

c)     c) We should reduce the burden we’re placing on future generations.  The dependency ratio is increasing because of extended human longevity; the large retiring Baby Boomer segment; and our ability to keep babies alive with conditions that hamper their productivity and, in the past, would have resulted in juvenile death.  We’re relying on younger generations to take care of their elders, be the engine of our economy, parent/mentor their children and bear the burden of the huge debt we have keep increasing.

d)    d) We should be honest regarding tax cuts.  I did not support the Trump tax cut (I’m a high-tax guy) but I was pleased that it did not favor the rich so much. 

i)       For example, they were very creative in avoiding tax breaks for small professional organizations like my business. 

ii)      President Obama and Hillary Clinton had both voiced the need for reduced corporate taxes. 

iii)    In some ways, Trump’s tax cuts benefited everybody: increasing the value of retirement funds, raising wages and lowering prices.  I’m not saying that the middle class got more tax cuts than the wealthy (it is hard to cut taxes without reducing them for those who pay the most), I’m simply saying that the criticism has been substantially inaccurate, unnecessarily tearing our country apart.

3)     In an emergency, it is critical to cooperate with attempted solutions.

     I  a) If a previous blog, I expressed my disgust at President Trump’s unwillingness to wear a mask.

   I   b) I’ve also been disgusted that security personnel have been accosted for enforcing mass mandates, that school systems wasted resources litigating against cities that limited attendance at high school football games, etc.

)        c) We should avoid intentional misinformation and should be more careful about spreading potentially false information we receive.

H   d) How can you prove a technique doesn’t work if you don’t try it?  Even if you disagree, you should cooperate to be courteous to others and develop data which may support your position.

4)     We’re “in it” together, hence should work together even beyond pandemic issues. 

       a) With difficulty, we managed to hold a secure election with relatively large turnout.  We should not undermine the process by supporting false accusations.

  O b) On all issues, we should respect each other’s opinions and consider them carefully.  “Cancel culture” is un-American and intolerant.

   T c) The most affluent members of our society pay an overwhelming percentage of our country’s taxes, a much higher percentage than most people would guess due to inaccurate vitriol.  We should acknowledge their contributions even if we tell them we need more, rather than stoking class warfare.  To be fair, tax analysis should also recognize:

i)       We have a lot of hidden taxes, which are ignored in most analyses.  For example, wealthier people pay more for college and more for nursing home care because of subsidies to less-affluent people.  I’m not criticizing the practice; I’m criticizing ignoring these contributions.

ii)      We should consider who benefits from the tax.  If we levy a $1 tax on each individual and give it to the most impoverished, many critics would complain that the tax exacerbated economic disparities because it is regressive.  But if they consider the resulting income redistribution, it clearly would reduce economic disparity. 

iii)    The rich make huge donations to charities which benefit society.  Several tax reforms squeeze non-profits.  Some politicians have a hidden agenda to replace non-profits with government-run programs or at least government-funded programs, mimicking Europe.

5)     Trust in science is important but shouldn’t be distorted into demanding blind, unquestioning trust in orthodoxy and government. 

 We can cooperate with attempted solutions, while expressing disagreement if appropriate.  Science is about data, replication, refinement, and exploring alternative theories and interpretations.  Science did not initially know many things relative to the pandemic, for example:

   T a) The relative value of forward tracing vs. backward tracing

  T b) The ability to find clusters through waste streams

   T c) The efficacy of (various types of) masks in various settings

   T d) The degree of separation that was important (six feet?)

  H e) How ventilation contributed to transmission

 W f) hat drugs are helpful

  T g) The source of COVID-19

Sa  Sadly, debate on the above issues was inappropriately discouraged.

6)     Jobs are important and employers take more risks than most people realized. 

Yet elements of our society and political system have leveraged the pandemic to accelerate their anti-business agenda.

    I a) It was clever to use pandemic payments to try to force businesses to pay higher wages. But is it a good idea to push additional vulnerable businesses into bankruptcy by increasing their costs or making it hard to find staff under the current conditions?  (There also are questions as to whether it is an appropriate tactic, but I’m not addressing that issue here.)

   I b) Is it a good idea to encourage citizens to back out of the labor pool and stay out of the labor pool?

 D c) Despite being a staunch opponent of Trump for 40 years, I acknowledge that he increased employment to levels I thought would be impossible in today’s world of automation and international trade.  He particularly increased minority employment and the income level of poorer segments of our population.  Do we really want to blindly reverse all his policies for ideological reasons?

  S d) See the union and pharmaceutical sections below.

W e) We appropriately decry food deserts and blighted areas with few businesses to supply goods and jobs.  Yet we condone destruction of property and, in California, shop-lifting.  Not only does that make business untenable, it also trains people to exhibit destructive behavior. I’ve always supported peaceful respectful protest (including NFL players “taking a knee”), but not destruction.

7)     Unions are important; balance of power must be our goal.

  D a) During the pandemic, more people awakened to the negative side of teachers’ unions.  Our greatest systemic racism is our public schools’ failure in lower-economic communities.  Yet teachers’ unions staunchly resist proven solutions such as public charter schools.  They also resisted opening schools in the pandemic and have protected incompetent teachers.

M b) More people became concerned that police unions have protected officers who have consistently misbehaved.

 Ik c) In the past, unions and credentialing requirements impeded minority and lower-economic class membership.  We should applaud the degree to which such bias has been removed, but there is more work to do, particularly relative to credential requirements.  Softening some credentialing requirements would improve equality and help stimulate post-pandemic recovery.

  D d) Despite growing awareness that unions, like all organizations, have advantages and disadvantages, many politicians promote legislation to end the private ballot in union elections and tilt the pendulum overwhelmingly in favor of unions vs. business.

     I e) I recently saw a presentation about the positive impact of unionization of long-term care workers in the state of Washington.  I am not anti-union, just seeking the elusive proper principles and balance.

     I f) In the fast food industry, low-paid workers are required to be available for overtime even if not called.  Such disruption of their ability to get a second job seems wrong to me.  A union might help resolve that issue.

8)     The pharmaceutical industry came through for us magnificently.

    I a) It developed anti-COVID-19 vaccines in record time and also developed a pill to reduce hospitalization and deaths of people with mild or moderate COVID-19.

   T b) The industry facilitated broad international distribution.

  Y c) Yet, some politicians want to “kill the golden goose” by confiscating its property rights.

 A d) As a side note, it clearly makes sense for Medicare to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry.  However, matching its lowest charge does not make sense because the pharmaceutical industry has donated medications to third-world countries for free.  Historically, the pharmaceutical industry has recovered its investment and necessary return on capital from sales in the USA.  Hence, when courting foreign accounts in the face of competing drugs, pharmaceutical companies have used marginal pricing, resulting in lower prices.  Our government should not anticipate matching those low marginal prices as those prices will have to rise if the USA is going to contribute less to the industry’s capital investment and return.

9)     Avoiding evictions is important during a pandemic but confiscating property rights is damaging.

   I a) If we want to pay people’s rent, we can do so.  During the pandemic, that made sense.

  C b) Confiscating property rights is scary.  Many property-owners are not receiving rental income they deserve, and which may be critical to them.  Example: A lady’s sister was unable to move in to provide end-of-life care because the tenant wouldn’t move out when her lease was over. 

W c) What will be the future impact on housing?

i)       Fewer units built because people will be less interested in becoming landlords.

ii)      Rental units converted to condos.

iii)    Higher security deposits.

iv)    Higher cleaning fees.

v)      Higher rents.

vi)    Fewer upgrades.

vii)   Less maintenance in general.

After fumbling the ball, will government blame private enterprise for such problems?

10)  The world is co-dependent.  An “America First” plan may not best be optimal.

  C a) Clearly there are strategic industries for which an “America First” plan makes sense.

  B b) But international trade has contributed to tremendous reduction in world poverty.  We should take pride in having contributed to improvement in foreign living standards.

   I c) It has also contributed to lower prices for goods and services.

W d) We say we want to help people be more economically successful in their home countries, so they won’t feel a need to emigrate to the USA.   “America First” undermines that goal.

H e)  How do an “America First” plan and goals for economic recovery square with an “America Last” program relative to energy?  Does it make sense to suppress energy development in the USA then ask other countries to increase their production of those same energy sources or sources more harmful to the environment?