City Pensions

They’re in trouble. You knew that, though, as city budgets have long favored spending more than revenue, especially spending on public union pensions and other retirement benefits, and so debts piled up—and continue to amass.

One particular arena where that’s having potentially deleterious effect is in pensions with benefits like paid (or mostly paid) health plans.

Cities and states can’t afford to keep the same medical benefits they promised government retirees.
For all 50 states combined, revenue declines for 2020 and 2021 could reach 13% cumulatively, according to Moody’s Analytics projections, while the average cost of an employer health-care plan for an individual increased 4% in 2020 to $7,470, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation nonprofit.

The current excuse is the Wuhan Virus situation having crushed sales-tax income and tourism dollars. In the end, though, the specific crisis du jour isn’t important: there always will be a crisis that will crush city revenues. An example of the reach of any crisis is this:

The Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund sponsored a self-insured health-care plan for its retirees from 1975 to 2018, said fund spokesman David Graham.
“With no dedicated funding source for this plan, it eventually became unsustainable,” Mr Graham said in a written statement, adding that retirees would have had to increase their contributions to keep the health-care fund solvent.

There’s a hint, in that “dedicated funding source.” There needn’t be one could retiree pension health “benefits” be structured differently.

That brings me to the “potentially deleterious” bit. Deleteriosity is only potential because the overall situation presents opportunity: privatizing health plan provision, returning the provisioning to true health insurance—premiums based on the risks being transferred to the coverage provider—and using the free market and its intrinsically competitive nature to govern both customer costs—those premiums—and product quality.  Quality especially would include the breadth of insurance products offered: single or a very few health matters insured; suites of preventive health care insurance for standard items like colds and flu, annual checkups; a broad range of other coverage offerings that might be relatively specific or relatively broad.

That opportunity often will be beyond an individual city’s capability to implement, but aggregations of cities might approach the capacity, and certainly at the national level, the health coverage industry can be privatized and included in the nation’s free market economy. At that point, cities would be able to step out of the health coverage business altogether beyond—perhaps—providing a cafeteria of market plans purchased on the open, free market for their city employee retirees.

More opportunity: with retirees responsible for choosing their own plans with which to satisfy their own needs and desires and paying for those plans with their own money—as grown adults, they really are capable of that without Big Brother Government or overreaching unions “helping”—they’ll take both their health and their insurance costs seriously.

A Misapprehension

John Yoo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY), and others, are suggesting that, given the apparent irregularities (because I’m being polite) in several States’ ballot acceptance and counting procedures, “the courts may decide the election.”

McConnell, et al., misunderstand the situation. The courts won’t decide anything. This election has been decided by American voters. It may take the courts to enforce our decision, though.

There would seem to be strong cases, too, for reversing those…irregularities. Our Constitution’s Article I, Section 4 says pretty explicitly that State legislatures set the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections… and that Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. There’s no wiggle room there.

State non-legislative officials—elections board commissioners, Secretaries of State, governors, et al.—do not have the legal capacity to alter States’ laws, for instance, deadlines for receiving ballots, requirements regarding signature comparison and witness signatures on absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. They do not have that capacity even under the guise of emergencies like the Wuhan Virus situation.

In particular, the virus situation was in full bore by last spring, and both Congress and the States’ legislatures have had months in which to adjust election laws to account for the virus’ impact—and they universally chose to make no adjustments.

Those non-legislative officials’ adjustments are not merely illegal, they’re unconstitutional.

Full stop.

“Journalism”

There is much bodice-ripping and manufactured angst among what passes for journalism and journalists as the still in progress election counting has exposed their “expertise” as just so much holier-than-thou lecturing of us unwashed and that “expertise” shown to be wholly non-existent.

Here, for example, is self-styled news journalism “critic,” Howard Kurtz discussing his fellows’ bad misses regarding this election and journalists’ claimed voter concerns in this election. Notice that: a journalist commenting on journalists. A truly objective bit of commentary. Sure.

Why were the media so utterly convinced that President Trump would be trounced in the election?

They never were convinced—they were making it up from the jump.

Why were all the expectations for a substantial Joe Biden victory, to the point that many news outlets were running lists of his possible Cabinet members…?

They never had such expectations—they were making it up from the jump.

They were convinced that Trump’s handling of the pandemic, with 230,000 Americans having died from the virus, would sink him.

No, they weren’t. They were making both of those up from the start.

Kurtz is operating from the false premise that the press is honest. He’s not that naive, but he is operating in his own bubble. When has he talked to or read anything written by anyone other than a journalist?

When has Kurtz gone into the wilds of flyover country and talked to folks in Dinky Town, IA, Cornfield, KS, Smalltown, MT, Ranchland, TX, Wheatsilo, OK, or the middle of our southeastern States—the little towns, not the cities?

An Electoral College Thought

Spitballing here.

The Left worries that the Electoral College abolished, because its use renders the popular vote for President/Vice President irrelevant. The Right argues that that preserves representation of the States qua States in the election of our President and Vice President. That was the intent of our Founders when they wrote our Constitution, and the intent of We the People when we ratified it.

Under our current Electoral College setup, each State gets a number of President/Vice President electors equal to the sum of the number of Representatives it’s allowed in the House and the two Senate seats it has in the Senate.

Here’s a thought that emphasizes both the popular vote and the States’ equal representation in the selection of President/Vice President.

Do away with the Electoral College as it stands, and replace it with a one State, one President/Vice President vote, and that vote is determined by that State’s popular vote. If a State’s popular vote favors one candidate, that State’s Electoral vote goes to that Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate.

That provides truly equal State representation in the election—just as each State has, by design, equal representation in the Federal Senate—while that representation is determined by that State’s popular vote.

Of course this would require a Constitutional amendment.

A Couple of Economic Charts

Via Carpe Diem.

Here is one that illustrates one aspect of the alleged earnings disparity, which in turn is a component of wealth inequality:

Notice when this subset of the gender gap began to close and to be eliminated—the Trump administration.

Here’s one on the subject of atmospheric CO2 emissions, especially pertinent in light of our official withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord Wednesday.

This was accomplished through ordinary free market economics and the application of technology within that market. Restrictions on our economy in order to meet artificial outcomes are unnecessary—and that’s the case regardless of the legitimacy of CO2 emissions concerns. Keep in mind, too, that the People’s Republic of China has voluntary limits that don’t even begin for another decade.