Category Archives: politics

Sexual Harassment

Posted on by
Reply

The stampede to call out sexual harassment is growing, and actionable complaints are being made.  These need to be carefully investigated, and the hides of those convicted nailed to the outhouse wall.

However, there also is a growing number of accusations made against unnamed harassers—just claims of workplace harassment devoid of useful specifics.  The latest round (eliding Al Franken, who’s the subject of a nearby post) is claims of harassment in Congress.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D, CA) said she knows of two current members of Congress who “have engaged in sexual harassment,” while another congresswoman, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R, VA) recounted a member who exposed himself to a female staffer.

The members were not named.

And

Senator Claire McCaskill (D, MO) told reporters that she had been harassed when she interned on Capitol Hill, but she did not report it.

And

[Former Congressional Black Caucus Fellow] M Reese Everson said that a member of Congress asked if he could flirt with her “in order [for her] to excel in [her] career.”

The problem with this sort of accusation is that there’s no reason to believe them, certainly there’s no way to check them out, and most importantly, there’s no way to go after the harassers if they do exist—they get off scott free.

That’s unacceptable in both ways.  Name names.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to push for lowered State tax rates, empirically observed.

There are signs home buyers in metropolitan New York are pausing to consider the effects of proposed federal tax law changes, setting the stage for a possible chill in the market, brokers say.

The changes, in versions of bills in both the House and the Senate, likely would increase the cost of home ownership and reduce after-tax discretionary income for many mostly affluent home buyers in New York and other states with high state and local income and property taxes, brokers and analysts say.

This isn’t entirely true, though.  The reduced deductibility of mortgage interest will lead to lowered house prices (and through that, downward pressure on rents, even in rent-controlled New York City) through two pathways.  One is reduced demand for house ownership.  The other is through a lesser interest deduction being factored into a house’s price—this one will impact primarily, the high-end houses bought with jumbo mortgages, contra those brokers and analysts.

Or a high-tax State can do nothing and suffer the consequences.

One couple, who looked for homes in the area last year, is coming down to see a house on an island off Miami Beach listed for $22.5 million over the summer, Mr [Jeff, a Miami broker] Miller said.

“People I have been working with were on the fence,” he said. “Now they want to move [to Florida]. The new tax bill was the nudge they needed to push them over.”

These are exactly the high-income, high-asset folks whose pockets high-tax States like New York want to pick.

TPP Light

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump, on taking office, pulled the US out of the not-yet-finalized Trans-Pacific Partnership, which involved nations all around the Pacific rim including the US and Canada.  The TPP was far from perfect, but international trade is more about international relations and foreign policy than it is about economics, and it was a mistake to pull out.

The economic and political power of the coalition would have been a powerful brake against an acquisitively aggressive People’s Republic of China; the remaining 11 nations still represent some 17% of all world trade—and 30% of the world’s trade runs on sea routes the go through the TPP’s region—trade that is every bit as critical to the PRC’s economy as it is to Japan’s and the US’.

It might yet be.

[T]he eleven remaining TPP members have reached an agreement on the trade pact in principle, which means a new pact—without the United States—could be put into place which could shape trade in the Asia-Pacific area for the next decade.

Of course Canada is being nearly as foolish, demanding union rights over right to work parameters and expressing a willingness to blow up the remaining TPP if they can’t have them, but at least they’re still talking.

We should support the TPP’s conclusion for its PRC-containment potential, at the very least.

PRC Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

…is reaching into other nations to deprecate their free speech.

Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at Australia’s Charles Sturt University has written a book, Silent Invasion, that details the breadth of influence the People’s Republic of China has achieved within Australia.  His publisher, Allen & Unwin, has decided to “delay” release of the book because the PRC is threatening “defamation action” against the publisher.

What defamation, exactly (and how does a private citizen defame a foreign government, anyway)?  Hamilton says his book is

“very factual, very deeply researched,”…the “first comprehensive national study of Beijing’s program of exerting influence on another nation.”

He said he had documented the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on Australian political parties, universities and cultural organizations, as well as on Chinese living in Australia.

Apparently, on private enterprises, as well.

As Hamilton put it, Allen & Unwin’s decision to acquiesce to the PRC’s threats is

a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech.

Hamilton has said he’ll get another publisher, and it would seem he has another instance of PRC “influence” within Australia to describe.  Along the way, I have to wonder why, in future, any author would want to do business with so unreliable a publisher.

Death Panels?

Posted on by
Reply

The Affordable Care Act required Medicare to penalize hospitals with high numbers of heart failure patients who returned for treatment shortly after discharge. New research shows that penalty was associated with fewer readmissions, but also higher rates of death among that patient group.

Because sometimes readmission is necessary for quality care—whether that readmission was driven by later complications, by too-soon original discharge in the Medicare (which is to say Government) pressure to hold down costs first, or by some other factor—but that Government pressure to push the patient out the door also pushes against the patient’s return.  Even when necessary.

Here are a couple of numbers from a study soon to be published in JAMA Cardiology:

One in five heart failure patients returned to the hospital within 30 days before the ACA passed. That dropped to 18.4% after the penalties. Mortality rates increased from 7.2% before the ACA to 8.6% after the penalties….

In other words, an 8% drop in readmissions is associated with a 19% rise in death rates for heart patients.  That’s not a favorable trade-off.

There is a legitimate interest in improving the quality of care for all patients, including those for whose care us taxpayers are paying, but readmission rate is not an accurate measure of that quality.  Readmission rate can only measure…readmission rate.  That metric addresses neither the reasons for readmission nor the reasons for the prior discharge.

Government pressure to hold down readmissions doesn’t quite amount to death panels, but the outcomes seem dismayingly similar.  To be clear, the results of the study do not establish a causal relationship, for heart patients, between the lowered readmission rate and the higher death rate.  However, the magnitude of the apparent association between the two desperately wants further investigation.