Heller’s Obstructionism On Full Display

Perhaps the most under-reported scandalous behavior in Washington, D.C. is the continual obstruction of Presidential nominations to fill vacancies in administrative and judicial posts, and Nevada junior Senator Dean Heller has been right in the middle of it.

First, he opposed the nomination of Elissa Cadish, refusing to sign the paperwork necessary for her candidacy as a judicial nominee to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, because he was miffed by her position on guns.  Now, he’s opposing the nomination of Jennifer Dorsey because her previous law firm made a major donation to the PAC associated with Senator Harry Reid. [LVSun]

Surprise, surprise … law firms make significant political donations.  Who would have thought it?

“Nevada Sen. Dean Heller announced via statement Thursday that he would not be supporting Dorsey’s nomination because he was concerned about the propriety of large financial contributions Dorsey and her law firm — Kent, Jones & Coulthard — made to Sen. Harry Reid campaign and political action committees as he was considering recommending her to Obama for the position.” [LVSun]

That’s it?  No mention of her qualifications? Her previous legal work?  Not even a bit of sugar coating to make his opposition seem more professional, more considered?  Just pure good old fashioned unalloyed partisanship?  It doesn’t get more shallow than this.

Of course, Senator Heller’s previous press release wasn’t any more indicative of critical thinking.  His solution to the problem of interpreting the meaning of Internal Revenue Service regulations regarding the applications for 501(c)4 tax exempt status seems not to be the province of Congress to make clear and explicit statutes on what constitutes “social welfare” and if this should be the primary or the exclusive purpose of an applicant organization.

Nor, does Senator Heller propose that we restore the positions at the IRS, at least the 42 cut from the tax exemption department which took those ill advised shortcuts to process a 56% increase in the number of applications,  a staffing shortage which led to the creation of the shortcuts in the first place.  Believe it or not, Senator Heller’s “solution” is to exacerbate the problem.

“The President’s budget requested that about $440 million be diverted to the IRS for the purpose of enforcing the President’s healthcare law. Considering the IRS is under increasing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, Heller introduced legislation to stop additional funding.”  [Heller]

Jolly, so budget cuts and staff reductions created problems for the Cincinnati office of the IRS in terms of determining the tax exempt status of 501(c)4 applicants, and now Senator Heller is promoting the idea that the IRS should be restricted in how it enforces health care insurance reform statutes?

This is simply classic Republican obstructionism at its finest.  The formula is predictable and thoroughly tested: Decry the incompetence of government, then cut funding and staffing levels for government agencies. When the agencies cannot function properly because of the funding and staffing cuts, decry the incompetence of government… lather…rinse…repeat.

Senator Heller’s machinations might be interesting, or at least amusing, if they were at least a tad bit unusual.  They aren’t.  He gives every appearance of spending the last week in full Obstruction and Blatant Partisanship Mode.   His fixation on the outward attributes of governmental operations makes Shallow Hal look like an astute and circumspect observer of human personality.

Meanwhile, the Federal District Courts in Nevada remain seriously understaffed.  How many more Nevada citizens and businesses must wait for their day in court before Senator Heller can find his  “perfect” nominee for an appointment to the bench?

Milestones in Congressional Investigations

There are some magic moments during Congressional hearings which deserve to be retained in memory as illustrative of a political philosophy, or as indicative of a major issue, or as a turning point in public discussion (think of “At long last, have you no shame?” or, Butterfield’s testimony during the Watergate hearings.)  And, then there are those 1 minute and 14 seconds during which some members of Congress display the reasons for their reputations — this is one such bit of sound and video:

You Want A Scandal?

While the Villager Press inside the beltway gets all titillated over the IRS (which only denied the 501(c)4 application of one organization, a liberal group in Maine) and the AP (which might have revealed information about a CIA covert agent) and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi… (oops the full emails show the CIA wanted to limit the amount of information about ops in the area?) there are some scandalous situations about which no one in the Cocktail Party Circuit appears to be getting all flustered…and outraged…and fulminatory about.   Let’s try on a few.

STUDENT LOANS

The Federal Reserve Discount Rate right now is 0.75%. [BankRate] So, banks can borrow money at 3/4th of a percent.  The current Stafford Student Loan Rate (in school) is 3.4% and the current Stafford Student Loan Rate (out of school) is 6.8%.  [BankRate]  We know, of course, that the banks don’t keep loans on their own books for the most part, and the student loans are really safe “paper” to package up into bonds, which in turn get sliced and diced into derivatives for the market traders to play with, creating a tidy $1 Trillion in total student indebtedness in this country. [WSJ]

We say we need more scientists, more engineers, more physicians, more nurses, more architects, and more computer engineers — but when it come down to helping students pay for the education necessary to pursue these degrees our next generation finds itself so saddled with student debt that basic life decisions — like finding housing, getting married, and paying the usual bills are swirled into the vortex of loan repayment.  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York posted this conclusion on April 17, 2013:

“Student loans have soared in popularity over the past decade, with the aggregate student loan balance, as measured in the FRBNY Consumer Credit Panel, reaching $966 billion at the end of 2012. Student debt now exceeds aggregate auto loan, credit card, and home-equity debt balances—making student loans the second largest debt of U.S. households, following mortgages. Student loans provide critical access to schooling, given the challenge presented by increasing costs of higher education and rising returns to a degree. Nevertheless, some have questioned how taking on extensive debt early in life has affected young workers’ post-schooling economic activity.”   [...]

As seen in the chart below, the share of twenty-five-year-olds with student debt has increased from just 25 percent in 2003 to 43 percent in 2012. Further, the average student loan balance among those twenty-five-year-olds with student debt grew by 91 percent over the period, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Student loan delinquencies have also been growing, as shown in the recent presentations by New York Fed economists Donghoon Lee and Wilbert van der Klaauw.

The number of student in debt has increased, the amount of the debt has increased, and so have the number of delinquencies.  And all the while the profitability of the banks (which we remember were bailed out with tax payer dollars) has continued unabated.  “Banks have been reporting steady growth in earnings since soon after the financial crisis. With the latest reports rolling in, analysts think the banks’ first-quarter profits will be their best ever.” [NYT 4/17/13]

Now isn’t that nice. The banks are getting “best ever” profits and the students are getting more deeply mired in debt.  Does this mean we have a Congress more concerned with the profitability of the banks than with the manageability of student debt, and the prospect of a nation in which fewer young people can afford to seek the educations which would boost their economic circumstances and enhance our national structure?  Meanwhile, it’s seemingly more important to give freshman Congress creatures an opportunity to repeal the Affordable Care Act — for the 37th time — than it is to conduct hearings and draft legislation to address the Student Loan Scandal.   Perhaps if we start calling the situation a “scandal” some attention might be brought to the subject?  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has a bill on the Senate side to offer a bit of relief, which by some lights doesn’t go far enough, but at least someone is paying attention.

Military Sexual Assaults

There are approximately 1.4 million people serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and the Pentagon reports there have been some 26,000 cases of sexual assault.  This isn’t a “women’s problem.” This is a military culture problem.  This is a legal problem.    Even the distribution of a motion picture on the subject (The Invisible War) hasn’t raised the Scandal Flag amongst the Village Media.  A Senate Armed Services Subcommittee has held one hearing — March 13, 2013. [SASC]   On the other side of the building House Armed Services chairman Buck McKeown  “said he was outraged and disgusted by the Fort Hood allegations.” [CNN]  As well he should be — so now where are the umpteen hearings on sexual assaults in the military?  Generally, when the term “sex” is combined with an issue — infidelity, crime, or whatever — the resulting phrase is Sex Scandal.  Why not this time?  Oh, yes, wait — the House is still voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time, and there will be more hearings on Benghazi…

This could go on … isn’t it scandalous we’re reducing the federal budget deficit … “The federal deficit is shrinking more quickly than expected, and the government’s long-term debt has largely stabilized for the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in a report…” [LAT] BUT there’s a House bill which would further reduce funding for SNAP and nutrition programs, Meals on Wheels is sharply curtailing services to the elderly, and the Mysterious Chargemaster continues to make hospitalization bills inexplicable, opaque, and unfathomable…but these haven’t risen to the level of “Scandal” in the Washington, D.C. media.

And, then there’s the polling indicating that some 91% of the American people thought there ought to be expanded background checks to mitigate the prospects that an insane person, a felon, a fugitive, an undocumented person, or a juvenile could get hold of lethal weapons … and the Senate Republicans filibustered the bill…

For information about these issues we’re better off looking to local reporters who write about local children going hungry, or local seniors unserved, or local hospital rates, or local gun violence tragedies …. Perhaps if a crowd of  senior citizens picketed a military installation (or a couple of banks) clad like the current on-sale portrait of the late great  Bea Arthur, and packed AR-15s for show while waving their empty plates and their grandkids’ student loan papers … could we get some attention here?  And, while we’re at it — Where are the JOBS bills?

Would THAT be a scandal?

Giving Your Local Government The Twinkie Treatment?

Those wonderful people who brought Hostess Brands, Inc. to its knees and left the country bereft of Twinkies for a time — are back.  This time they’re looking at the city of Detroit, Michigan.  [Reuters] To wit:

“Monarch Alternative Capital, which played a major role in the bankruptcy of Twinkie-maker Hostess Brands Inc, and several other funds have scooped up more than $600 million of debts of Jefferson County, Alabama, according to court records.  But nowhere is attracting more attention than Detroit.  With $8.6 billion in long-term debt, Detroit would be comparable to the biggest corporate failures if it eventually files for bankruptcy, a major advantage for big hedge funds that are used to investing hundreds of millions of dollars at a time.” [Reuters]

What could possibly go wrong?  Let’s review.  Buying up ‘distressed debt’ isn’t anything new — as long as there were corporate bankruptcies aplenty vulture capitalists could purchase debts and then ‘assist in the process of turning companies around.’  The first problem for the vulture squadron is that corporations are now sitting on loads of cash.  There just aren’t as many shaky corporations as there used to be — companies like Hostess Brands, Inc. with a dubious history of mismanagement and duplicitous dealings with its workers.  The second problem for the flying Cathartes Aura  Crowd is that they need to find “investment” opportunities for their own cash.   When Investment meets Opportunity there’s the possibility of a down-side, elegantly demonstrated in Jefferson County, Alabama.

The Jefferson County Debacle

In 1996 Jefferson County, Alabama decided to repair and replace portions of its aging sewer system such that untreated sewage would not be flowing into rivers during heavy rains.  The county issued revenue bonds (payable from system collections) for the $1.5 billion project in 1997.  The county also purchased derivative “protection” for some of the fixed rate debt.  All seemed well until the $1.5 billion project increased to $2.2 billion and the county was saddled with approximately $3 billion in debt.

By late 1997 one Republican county commissioner was raising red flags: “The financing — which refinanced floating-rate debt with fixed-rate debt, and then used the derivative to essentially convert it back to floating-rate again — left it with a higher interest cost than when it began, she said. She estimated it raised the county’s expense by some $1.2 million a year, creating alarm about cronyism, excessive fees and fraud.” [Bloomberg]  She was right to be alarmed.

When the financing began (with the ‘assistance’ of JPMorganChase) about 95% of the county’s debt was fixed rate, and by the end the percentage of floating rate (auction rate) debt was about 93% of the total.  There was cronyism aplenty:

“The bank’s fees on the swaps weren’t disclosed; rather, they were embedded in the interest rates the county paid. JPMorgan overcharged the county on the swaps to cover the cost of more than $8 million in secret payments made to friends of county commissioners who worked for local companies, a step to secure JPMorgan’s lead role, according to the SEC.”  [Bloomberg]

The commissioner’s worst fears were given tangible form when in 2007  an independent review of the fees charged reported that the $120 million in swap fees were about $100 million more than was warranted.

In the period between January and March 2008 as the country skidded into the Mortgage Meltdown the credit ratings of the two companies that insured Jefferson County’s bonds was slashed, and now without a “solid” credit rating money market funds and other investors started dumping the bonds.

The financial chaos included people going to jail for bribery and corruption charges, the county frantically trying to raise revenue, and the bankers engaged in negotiations to try to stabilize the situation.  The last two years have been a whirlwind in which the Jefferson County Commission have been trying to raise revenues — often blocked by Republicans in the state legislature — and closing down facilities in order to get the finances under some modicum of control.  [Al.com]

As of April 19, 2013 the situation still hasn’t been resolved, with a cram-down proposal — roundly criticized by creditors — on the table as the county tries to exit bankruptcy. [Al.com]

There are some important points to remember from the ongoing saga of the 658,000 people trying to figure out what’s been happening to the city of Birmingham and its surrounds.

First, this financial mess was created in so-called good financial times.  A county commission seeking to do the right thing was sold a financing scheme which fitted the revenue plans of the investment bankers but was a poor fit for long term capital projects.  The collusion of government leaders with investment bankers equated to long term losses and some rather long jail sentences.  The oldest rule in contract negotiations was ignored: If you don’t understand it, don’t sign it.

Secondly, someone forgot that the derivatives market was essentially an unregulated Wild West version of capital investment, and we can assume it wasn’t the bankers making that mistake.

Third, while revenue bonds are a common form of financing for municipal projects,  they must be repaid from generating revenue from the specific project.  True, the issuance of revenue bonds allows local governments to bypass legislated debt limits, but there has to be income to pay them off.  Fancy financing is not a substitute for INCOME.   Put more bluntly — while revenue bonds are great for toll bridges they aren’t necessarily a good way to finance larger systems such as sewer and water or other public utility services.  General obligation bonds might have been a better suggestion back in 1996.

Fourth, in an age of securitized indebtedness, remembering that one man’s debt is another man’s asset is crucial.  Complicated transactions involving the securitization of debts (public or private) are chancy deals and no amount of financial wizardry can paper over the dangers associated with market based interest rates and the impact of derivative trading.

A bit of the ham-stringing, belt tightening, misery associated with the Birmingham Debacle can be seen in the current political and economic troubles on display in Detroit, Michigan.

Motor City Meltdown

Detroit is in debt. The amount and the ways to reduce it are at issue, but the debt is still there.  It’s between roughly $10 and $12 billion.  One “turn around” firm has suggested that the only way for Detroit to survive financially is to gut public employee contracts, sell off city assets, and slash city services.  [DFP] The mayor begs to disagree, and the next round in this fight may well concern whether or not to put the city under the control of an emergency manager to — gut public employee contracts, sell off city assets, and slash city services.   Enter the Cathartes Aura Crowd.

Cathartes Aura Capitalism

There is a way to make money off misery.  Simply buy up debts and negotiate a discount above a potential selling price.  For example, one might buy up bonds for 66 cents on the dollar and renegotiate with the city for an 80 cent per dollar repayment rate.   Then there’s the corporate model Visteon example, buy up the debt, pay off the secured lenders without telling them they aren’t going to end up owning the company, and then take over.  [Bloomberg]  Whether the example is corporate or public the end game is essentially the same.   A “turn around”  is always destructive.  And, there’s been little as obviously destructive as the turn around at Hostess Brands, Inc.

Ding Dong The Deal Is Dead

The first issue in dealing with the Twinkie Defense is to take care not to defend the indefensible.  In a country with looming acknowledgement that sugar should not be the main food group, and that confections should not be a major source of nutritional input, the Twinkie and the Ding Dong were probably gone’ers.  When product sales go down there is very likely a good reason.  What is disturbing is that a combination of corporate  mis-management and union desperation created a recipe for disaster.

What we can say with some degree of confidence is that corporate management achieved that fossilized level of thinking in which profits were comprehended only in the short term — to be returned to investors — and not as revenue to be divided between long and short term company needs.  Funds the union gave up for re-tooling and renovations simply flowed back into corporate coffers to no particularly good effect except to keep stock prices elevated.  The deeper the management got into financing with investors whose eyes were focused on short term returns the less able it was to evaluate its own structure, brands, and operations.   The company finally  became a manifestation of the coriolis effect in corporate financing as it flushed itself down the porcelain.   The vultures awaited:

“Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co., which made a joint offer to snap up the famous cream-filled cakes, have also entered the contest to buy Drake’s, which include Devil Dogs and Yodels, according to a source who requested anonymity because the sale process is private.” [HuffPo]

The union contracts were wiped out, the assets were sold, and the “company” split into the fragments investors were willing to buy up.

No one should have any pleasant delusions that the application of Cathartes Aura Capitalism to municipal financing won’t achieve the same purposes.   Whether the object is to “restore” financial stability or to “return” to profitability, the play book is essentially the same.  Reduce expenses (cut services, decrease employment costs), identify profit opportunities (privatize), and sell assets which will create immediate revenue.  It’s the word “immediate” that should concern us.

Creditors in the case of Jefferson County, Alabama aren’t willing to take a hair cut in the immediate future even though stabilizing the indebtedness of Birmingham’s public government is a more worthy public goal with long term benefits.

Creditors and investors in Detroit’s debt aren’t willing to wait for an uptick in the local economy predicated on the resurgence of the auto industry; they’d as soon get an immediate return on their investments.

Creditors in the Twinkies example weren’t willing to wait for, or perhaps even suggest to the management, a company reorganization in which some brands were dropped in order to focus on increasing sales in profitable divisions in the long view.

And here we have the ultimate problem with Financialism — the rigid attention to short term gains and quarterly reports which provide opportunities for immediate profits — long term development, whether it’s for a viable sewer system in Alabama, a pension plan in Michigan, or a bakery plant in Houston, are sacrificed on the altar of Immediate Profitability and Stock or Bond  Market Prices.

At least the Turkey Vultures have a slightly longer term view than our Cathartes Aura Capitalists — while the vultures can expect to live about 16 years in the wild, their Cathartes Aura cousins on Wall Street are often looking no further than the next round of quarterly reports.

Caveat Emptor: Recommended Reading on Research

If you’re feeling awash in the flood of talking points coming in waves from the Information Age — read this: Six Ways to Tell Lies From Statistics, by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers.  There’s some excellent advice in this column, and it’s in simplified language with the jargon mangled out.  Some points might be augmented with a bit more explication.

Their first point: “1. Focus on how robust a finding is, meaning that different ways of looking at the evidence point to the same conclusion.”  We find all manner of research which comes from the Million Studies of One Department.  If the results of a study can be repeated or replicated (and these are not necessarily the same thing) then the conclusions drawn are valid.  If not, then we have to ask if the original study publication jumps the gun, putting out “results” before insuring that the conclusions are replicable.   Compare this to the current flap over the austerity policy promoting Reinhart and Rogoff Study — we could look at the employment statistics from Eurozone countries, and we could see the double dip recessionary trends in their economies — but the Reinhart-Rogoff study said everything was going to be just fine because “austerity” worked.   A “robust” study conforms to other evidence, or confirms conclusions from different points of view.  Very rarely does it fly in the face of information from a variety of sources.

Their second point: “2. Data mavens often make a big deal of their results being statistically significant, which is a statement that it’s unlikely their findings simply reflect chance. Don’t confuse this with something actually mattering.”  Amen. If we toss pennies in the air the odds are heads and tails show up 50% of the time over the long run.  That’s chance.  The basic idea is summarized as follows:

“Statistical significance is a mathematical tool that is used to determine whether the outcome of an experiment is the result of a relationship between specific factors or merely the result of chance.” [WiseGeek]

It’s a tool.  What is the tool used to do?

“In a scientific study, a hypothesis is proposed, then data is collected and analyzed. The statistical analysis of the data will produce a number that is statistically significant if it falls below a certain percentage called the confidence level or level of significance. For example, if this level is set at 5 percent and the likelihood of an event is determined to be statistically significant, the researcher is 95 percent confident that the result did not happen by chance.” [WiseGeek] (emphasis added)

Where the results have more importance for policy, like the approval of an experimental drug for use by human beings, or the conclusions have public safety implications — like in food testing protocols we might want to have a 3% confidence level.  However, we need to be careful not to confuse statistical significance with social or political  significance.

For example, if I were to hypothesize that apples are better for us nutritionally than pears, and I have a whopper big sample size and perform all the right statistical tests, I may come up with a statistically significant result that the apples are the winners BUT what if the difference between the two fruits is so small as to be inconsequential in the overall human diet?   The larger conclusion (eating fresh fruit is good for us) stands, and while my study might be informative — it’s just not that informative.

Their third point: “3. Be wary of scholars using high-powered statistical techniques as a bludgeon to silence critics who are not specialists.”   Merely because someone can wield a regression analysis doesn’t mean his or her study is the Be and End All of Research.   I’d add another note of caution. Beware of jargon in general.  The column’s authors make a good point: “If the author can’t explain what they’re doing in terms you can understand, then you shouldn’t be convinced.“  If you happen to be a reasonably well educated, reasonably intelligent individual, then a reasonably well constructed study yielding reasonable results ought to be clear to you.

Their fourth point: “4. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking about an empirical finding as “right” or “wrong.”  This is especially difficult when the finding is “agreeable” or supports preconceived notions about a subject. Look, See, the Study Supports Me!  Empirical findings (results of data analysis) don’t automatically make the conclusion “right,” it simply adds an element of defensible data into the discussion.

Their fifth point: “5. Don’t mistake correlation for causation.”  Yes, oh yes, oh yes.  Some financial news pundits were quick to all but assert that high levels of government debt slowed economic growth. That statement or its inference speaks to causation, not correlation.  While debt and growth may correlate we have to ask are there other factors, not incorporated into the study and its results, driving the conclusions?   There may well be Chicken and Egg issues herein.  Is growth slow because the debt is increasing, or is the debt increasing because growth is slow already and governments are increasing debt to finance projects and employment to stabilize growth trends?

Their sixth point: “6. Always ask “so what?”  The authors of the column speak to “external usefulness,” and this is an important concept.  This concept is closely related to the questions about statistical significance.  Merely because a study shows statistical relationships doesn’t mean the study is dealing with significant issues, and because a study shows results based on a very high level of confidence doesn’t mean it has much, if any, utility for our discussions of public policy.

The authors provide a good hypothetical questions involving the use of the Reinhart-Rogoff study, centering on the reason for the increase in indebtedness.  Government profligacy or necessary expenditure for infrastructure projects?

I’d add a seventh proposition to this list: From whence comes the study?   Who is paying the piper?  The controversial “Success For All” program vacuumed up a hefty portion of educational research funding and it’s “success” was supposedly replicated all over the country.  But, wait. There was a working relationship between the research and the program, one that should have raised red flags about the independence of the research and the applicability of the results. [Pogrow]   Does anyone truly believe that the Heritage Foundation think tank will publish a study indicating that a growth based economic policy is better than cutting government spending?

On the other hand, the payment issue doesn’t’ have to necessarily be a non-starter.  Facts are facts no matter their point of origin.  It’s the methodology and the conclusions which we need to analyze carefully, not just the origin.  Once analyzed the data and conclusions have to pass that “So What?” test.

A Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Study found that: “A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes.” (pdf)  One side of the gun safety argument might see this as “proof” that fewer guns would make women safer in situations involving domestic violence.  Another view might argue that she should have her own arsenal readily available.   However, arguing that merely because a university sponsored the study — perhaps some ‘librul bastion’ — the finding is invalid isn’t productive. Facts are still facts.

When reading the pundits and the pontificators Disticha Moralia reminds us “Sermo datur cunctis; animi sapientia paucis.”

Guns and Numbers: Nevada Rankings

Before we get too comfortable with the idea that Nevada’s a safe place to live because we have lots and loads of guns, there are some numbers to consider.  {pdf}

There are some rankings in which we don’t look too bad.  For example, Nevada ranks 41st in the number of law enforcement personnel killed by firearms between 2002-2011; 2 or 0.08 per 100K population.  Granted that is two too many, but our ranking is certainly acceptable.

There are other rankings that aren’t so comforting.

Nevada ranked 25th in firearm homicides in 2010; 90 in 2010 or 3.3/100K population.  The ranking could be considered middling, but it’s still higher than should be considered acceptable.  Moreover, Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm homicides among women from 2001 to 2010  with 214 or a 1.77/100k rate.

Nevada ranks 17th nationally in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011.  1,301 or 53.30 per 100K population.  Again, this is a middle ranking, and we might speculate that it indicates a state with an essentially urban population, albeit with a relative small total population?

Nevada also ranks 17th in firearm deaths among children aged 0-17 between 2001 and 2010; 139 or 2.26/100k population.  A middle ranking among the 50 states doesn’t really cover this particular subtopic.  139 children lost in a ten year period means a statistical 13.9 lost each year.  Of course, these aren’t statistics — they were children with parents…

Now the rankings become more disturbing.  Nevada ranks 11th in the nation in the ATF “time to crime” statistics, or how short a time there is between the purchase of a firearm and its use in some criminal activity.   The assumption in their statistical model is that the shorter the time between the acquisition of a firearm and the time it is used in a crime suggests that there is gun trafficking going on. Or, as the ATF phrases it:

“Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm’s retail sale and law enforcement’s recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime. A short time-to-crime rate usually means the firearm will be easier to trace, and when several short time-to-crime traces involve the same individual/Federal firearm licensee, illegal trafficking activity is highly probable.” [UST]

What we have here is an “indicator” — not necessarily hard data — of criminals and those harboring criminal intent using Nevada’s relative lax gun regulation to procure and then to engage in gun trafficking to other states.   This doesn’t secure the proposition that Nevada is a “gun exporting” state, but it is highly suggestive that gun traffickers are taking advantage of the regulatory environment.

The gun export rate is more to the point, Nevada ranks 9th nationally in the “crime-gun export rate” in 2009; 808.  This means that we are 9th in the nation in the number of guns used in crimes in other jurisdictions which can be traced back to Nevada.

Nevada ranks 9th nationally in overall firearm deaths, 2010 — 395 or 14.63 per 100k population.  Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm suicides in 2010; 289 or 10.7 per 100k population.   This time being in the top ten is not a good thing.  Being in the top five is truly not comfortable: Nevada ranks 5th nationally in overall firearm deaths 2001 to 2010, 3895 deaths or 15.92 rate per 100K population.

Illogical Fallacies

There have been several kinds of responses to these rankings, the most common was to attack the messenger.  The Center for American Progress, which published the study, was immediately attacked as a leftist organization of elitists fund by George Soros.  [C&L] This tactic obviated the need to address any of the numbers, or the sources of data, or to discuss the conclusions drawn from the analysis — it was enough for detractors to observe the study had to be part of a Great Left Wing Conspiracy to indulge in sweeping and manifestly impractical gun control actions.  Sometimes facts are just facts.

Another common response when facts and figures are introduced into the discussion of gun violence and safety issues is to infuse the numbers with interpretations and inclusions not part of the original data.  For example, when speaking of “gun homicides” gun enthusiasts assert that these numbers “must” incorporate villains shot by law enforcement, and therefore “the numbers are high.”  Cases of individuals shot by police officers are subject to review, and contrary to popular scripted television melodramas aren’t really all that common.  That explains why the incidents show up on the evening news — if such were common they wouldn’t be “news.”

The federal government doesn’t collect officer involved shooting statistics, and would require a Congressional mandate to do so, but we do know that one report assigns 387  justifiable homicides by the police in 2010, down from 414 the previous year. [LVRJ] The CDC reports 31,672 gun deaths in 2010,  so the percentage of death at the end of a service gun would be 1.22% of all gun deaths in the U.S. in 2010.   1.22% is hardly a sufficient number to skew the overall statistical reports.

A third tactic when dealing with uncomfortable facts and figures is to play and mix and match game with specific incidents and overarching generalizations.   If we color code the format it might look like this, using green for facts, blue for a disconnected assertion, and orange for an appeal to emotion:  Yes, the gun enthusiast may assert, in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, BUT background check expansion won’t solve that problem because it will only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

A fourth strategy is to confound rational argument by extending the mixes and mismatches to apply to common problems and proposed solutions.  Consider the proposition that “increased background checks would not have prevented the Newtown, CT massacre.”  This contention requires the assumption that a proposal to close the gun show and Internet sale loophole for background checks was specifically intended to address that particular incident.  The assumption is not in evidence.  In this instance the contention is predicated on the conflation of the general public reaction to a  instance of gun violence with a specific proposal to make the acquisition of firearms by felons, fugitives, the seriously mentally ill, and undocumented aliens less likely.

When all else fails, there’s always the good old Gish Gallop in which assertions, distractions, extraneous statistics, and good old fashioned falsehoods are strung together in a verbal barrage of palaver such that there is no way to address the advocate’s “gallop” without literally shutting off the microphone at 15 second intervals.

It’s time to take a serious look at gun violence in this state and the other 49 — Without attacking messengers, without the infusion of muddled interpretations and extraneous information,  without the conflation of general incentives with specific incidents, and without the rambling rationalizations of the irrational.

Another Press Conference to Remind Us Why We Don’t Care About Press Conferences

Another Presidential press conference, and yet another reason to observe why presidents (of any political stripe) aren’t fond of press conferences.   There isn’t much reason for the general public to get exercised about these press Q & A’s either.

The topics were fairly predictable: The Civil War in Syria and the possible use of chemical weapons — by someone, sometime;  Benghazi; Immigration and our diplomatic and agency relations with Mexico; The implementation of the Affordable Care Act; The Boston Marathon bombing; The Sequester and the FAA fix; Guantanamo; Jason Collins.  Yawn.

Notice that not a single one of these questions addresses the single most important topic of interest to Americans — jobs and the economy.  The economy is polled at 40%; Budget and the national debt comes in at 6%; Immigration at 4%; Gun Safety at 3%; Health Care at 3%; Terrorism at 3%; and an unspecified “other” at 34%.   So, where were the questions about our unemployment statistics? Manufacturing?  Trade relations and implications?  Job creation legislation?  The effect of the Sequester on the GDP?  Crickets.

A second item of note is that the questions concerning foreign policy (Syria, Benghazi) were derivative.  The “red line” question was productive, but the follow up on the tragedy in Benghazi concerned a claim by Republican operatives, with dubious reputations for accuracy, that diplomats were not available for public comments.  This came  from the GOP lawyer who once opined that Valerie Plame couldn’t be “outed” because she wasn’t an undercover operative for the CIA — a patently false statement, from a patently unreliable source.

The Boston Marathon and national security question was a classic example of White House Press Corps self referencing:

“…There is also a series of senators — Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham — who allege that all these years after 9/11, there still wasn’t enough intelligence shared prior to the attack.  And now, Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Benghazi and Boston are both examples of the U.S. going backwards on national security.  Is he right?  And did our intelligence miss something?”  [transcript]*

This must be what passes for research amongst members of the press elite — Senator Greenroom makes a comment on television, reporter watches the presentation, reporter asks the President (or other available public official) about Greenroom’s comments, the response is treated as “news.”

The reporter might have been able to answer her own inquiry had she some familiarity with the State Department’s annual terrorism report.  The report for 2011 is now available online.  It would seem that a person, supposedly adept in reporting national issues, would be aware of the annual reports and would know the reports are  statutorily mandated.

A more important question might have been raised about intelligence sharing had the questioner demonstrated a bit more nuanced understanding of the topic.  There could have been a question about both the possibility that the FBI and CIA are often loath to share information, the sharing of which would indirectly expose sources and methods — and another line of inquiry concerning the delicacy of cooperation with Russian police and intelligence sources.  How can we effectively and efficiently share information with the Russians without becoming a cat’s paw for Russian intentions in Chechnya, or without becoming entangled in Russian internal politics?  Or, on the other hand, without compromising Russian sources and methods when they are attempting to assist us?

Those lines of questioning died in the wake of the self-referential, inside the Beltway, Village approach to journalism.

Meanwhile back in the real world:  Not only was there not a single question about jobs and the economy, there were some other very obvious questions that weren’t voiced.

The current death toll in the factory collapse in Bangladesh now stands at 411.  The European Union is considering revising its standards for duty free and quota free trade from countries which do not implement and enforce work place safety regulations. [Reuters]  The U.S. Department of Commerce has not yet posted any comments on trade with countries with few, if indeed any, worker safety laws in evidence (May 1, 2013) — Question, Mr. President: Does the U.S. Department of Commerce intend to review our trade relations with nations which have very unimpressive implementation of worker safety regulations?  More crickets.

And, pertaining to gun safety?  How much more productive would it have been to avoid the realm of Theater Critics and observe that initial efforts to expand gun ownership background checks to gun shows and Internet sales failed (Didn’t you twist enough arms?) and to ask:  Mr. President — The Tsarnaev brothers were in possession of a 9mm Ruger semi-automatic hand gun, alleged to be the weapon that killed the MIT police officer, and we know that the older brother was placed on the Terrorist Watch List.  [GUK] Should we seek to close the gun show and Internet sale loopholes to preclude those who are on terrorist watch lists from obtaining firearms? Should we amend 18 USC 842 to include those on terrorist watch lists from legal possession of explosives?   If anyone with a computer can locate this information within a half hour from online sources, then why is the there such a paucity of background information on display during White House press conferences?

Nor did the White House press corps give evidence they’ve looked across the pond lately.  Eurozone unemployment has risen to a record high, and Italian unemployment is higher than it’s been in the past 20 years.  [IBT]  Question Mr. President:  With the current economic troubles in the Eurozone in mind, what implications might this have for U.S. manufacturing and service sector exports to Europe?  What would this mean for American workers?  Never asked.

In short, what we saw on our televisions was yet another unfortunate display of a Bubble Wrapped press corps, asking insider questions about insider issues.  And, all without so much as a nod to the economic problems besetting the American public — stagnant wages, continuing long term unemployment, increasing income disparity, and a still improperly regulated financial sector which gives no indication that they’ve learned anything from their last debacle in 2007-2008.  Crickets.

* the transcript link as of May 1, 2013 references another release, and if the link is corrected readers may have to click on the Speeches link on the website.

Income Inequality and The Great American Disconnect

There’s an interesting piece describing the results of a Northwestern University study on the political/economic perspectives of the top 1% of income earners in the United States:

“First and foremost, rich people care about the deficit. More than 85 percent of the survey participants said they considered the nation’s budget deficit to be a “very important” problem facing the country, the researchers found. In addition, nearly one-third of those surveyed said the budget deficit and too much government spending is the nation’s biggest issue.”  [HuffPo]

So, 85% of the ultra-rich in this country are focused on the national budget deficit — what of the other 99% of the American people?   The article reports that as of a CBS poll taken in 2011 only 7% of the nation as a whole are similarly concerned.   If we bring this a bit closer to today’s date we might be seeing the impact of continual  publicity given to the deficit issue as Congress lurches from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.  The Pew Center and Roper Center surveyed Americans in March 2013 with the following results:

A CBS News poll in February 2013 showed about 11% of Americans focused on the deficit as the top national priority, the Quinnipiac Polling in January showed 20% giving the top priority to deficit reduction.  CNN showed 23% in January,  and Bloomberg polling reported 19% in December. [TPR]  The point may well be that in the last three months the number of people in the United States who view the budget deficit as the top national priority has never topped 23%.   There’s at least a ten percent gap — about 33% of the top 1% cite budget deficits.

We might be perilously close to a political situation in which the Congress of the United States of America is obsessing on a topic of major concern to only a few of its richest citizens.

What are most of the other people saying?  In the Pew/Roper polling 32% of respondents said JOBS and employment issues were their highest priority;  in the CBS polling 40% chose that topic; in the Quinnipiac polling 40% responded “the economy.”  The CNN poll showed 46% choosing “the economy,” and in the Bloomberg Poll 34% said “jobs and unemployment.” [TPR]  A person does have to statistically massage these numbers to reach the conclusion that the ultra-rich are focused on budget deficits while the remaining 99% are thinking about jobs and unemployment.

Needless to say, the top 1% saw “entitlement spending” as a problem and supported cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as a “solution.”

“On policy, it wasn’t just their ranking of budget deficits as the biggest concern that put wealthy respondents out of step with other Americans. They were also much less likely to favor raising taxes on high-income people, instead advocating that entitlement programs like Social Security and healthcare be cut to balance the budget. Large majorities of ordinary Americans oppose any substantial cuts to those programs.” [LAtimes]

While the effects of drum beating by conservatives that the Social Security Administration is “in trouble” is evident in some polling, there’s one interesting question raised in the August 2012 AP/Roper survey:

“If you had to choose, which would you prefer: raising Social Security taxes so that the benefits can be kept the same for everyone, OR, keeping Social Security taxes at the same rate they are at now, but reducing the benefits for future generations?”

The results:  Raise taxes, same benefits = 53%; Same tax, reduce benefits = 36%; unsure 9%, refused question 3%.   In other words, when push meets shove, most Americans are willing to accept higher Social Security taxation than risk reducing the benefits for ALL retirees.   This is hardly an indication that most Americans would be willing to cut Social Security in order to balance a federal budget.   There are other divides to bridge between the rich and the rest as well:

“While the wealthy favored more government spending on infrastructure, scientific research and aid to education, they leaned toward cutting nearly everything else. Even with education, they opposed things that most Americans favor, including spending to ensure that all children have access to good-quality public schools, expanding government programs to ensure that everyone who wants to go to college can do so, and investing more in worker retraining and education.”  [LAtimes]

In 2012  Pew Research polling, 53% of self identified upper class respondents and upper middle class ($100,000 annual earnings) had college degrees.   Thus, the rejection of educational opportunity programs for others smacks a bit of “I’ve got mine, now you’re on your own.”    This may be a function of the differentiation between the problems faced by the rich and those faced by the remainder of the population.  [Pew 8/2012]

 

Given the information in the Pew graph it’s hard NOT to see that most of  the upper echelon of our American economic elite have not had to face the same challenges as those in middle and lower income brackets.   What is disturbing about these graphics and analysis is the looming prospect that the interests of the economic elite take media and political precedence over the interests and needs of those who are not included in those upper brackets.   Trickle down politics (If it’s good for the rich it’s good for everyone) is no more genuine than trickle down economics (If it’s good for corporations it’s good for everybody.)

For more information see: “Rich Americans obsessed with budget…” Huffington Post;  “Inside the heads of the 1%…” Los Angeles Times; “Yes, the rich are different…” Pew Research Center; “Field of Degree and Earnings…” pdf Census Bureau.

Rep. Amodei’s Reverse Economics: It’s the Inequality

The U.S. House of Representatives had an opportunity to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 by 2015, and it declined to do so on a 227-184 vote.  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV Outback) and Representative Joe Heck (R-NVTeaParty) both voted against the increase.  Representatives Horsford (D-NV) and Titus (D-NV) voted in favor of the amendment. [roll call 174]

We can use a few charts to demonstrate why the Republican thinking on the subject of raising the minimum wage is counter-productive during an economic recovery.  Before launching into the graphics, a simple reminder is in order.  The only thing that encourages employment is DEMAND, i.e. there is more demand for an item or a service than current staffing levels can meet with acceptable levels of customer satisfaction.  There are few ways to increase demand.  Demand can be mandated, such as the requirement that individuals purchase private health insurance policies if they don’t already have such insurance in place.  Demand can be generated by allowing tax incentives, such as the deduction allowed on home mortgages.  Demand can be enhanced by creating a “must have” product.   However, there are limits to these three basic demand elements.

The limit is INCOME.  As we’ve seen during the debate over the health care reform issue, we can mandate that individuals purchase health insurance from private corporations, but if they cannot afford it then provisions have to be put in place to augment their financial capacity to do so.  Likewise, all the home mortgage deductions in the world won’t assist the housing market if the homeowners are unemployed or become under-employed such that they can no longer afford the payments.   There are numerous “must have” products and services on the market — but, people are also willing to “get by” without them if the price of the new product or service is beyond their reach.  Smart Phones are wonderful items, but for  a household straining on income from minimum wage jobs they are “might someday have,” rather than “must have now” products.

Now to the charts.   Atlantic published some handy charts related to how income is currently be distributed in the United States, and this first one illustrates where that income is going as well as any:

If productivity is increasing, then what happened to the income that is supposed to be generated? “Where did the gains from productivity go? Well, they went to the top. Household income, adjusted for inflation, has grown 12X more for the top 1% than for the middle 20% … and 24X more than the bottom 20%.”  [Atlantic]   Imagine that spending (demand) is like dragging a weight in order to get to the retail counter.  A person in the top 1% of all income earners in the U.S. has a weight 12X lighter than the Middle Class Americans in the line, and 24X lighter than the burden for those in the lower income categories.   The problem is that as of 2012 there were approximately 1,699,000 households in the United States with income above $250,000 annually, out of 114,761,359 households in total.   This works out to about 1.48% of the households in the nation seeing an increase in their income while the other 98.52% are looking at stagnating or decreasing incomes.   Here’s what the result looks like from one of the Atlantic business section charts:

This isn’t healthy.  Nor is it well explained by reverting to vague grandstanding about this is “America,” or we want “freedom.”  Or, isn’t “Liberty” nice?  Demand isn’t an abstraction. It IS the cumulative result of all the daily economic transactions we make in the course of our mundane lives.  How much to spend in the grocery store?  Do we need new clothing? How many pairs of jeans will the kids need this year?

How does the minimum wage look in this context? “In 1964, the minimum wage was about 50% of the average worker’s hourly earnings. By 2011, that figure fell to 37%.” [Atlantic]  In short, in 1964 those earning minimum wages had more “buying power” than they do now.  Buying Power = Demand.

So, what Representatives Amodei and Heck are telling us in roll call vote 174 is that they see no need to address the increasing variance in income across economic lines, and they see no need to increase the purchasing capacity of American workers.   They give every appearance of clinging mightily to the comforting mythology of Voodoo Economics, in which a consumer based economy is to be supported by real transference of wealth to the upper 1.48% of American households who will “invest” in “jobs.”   The Republican screeds about “re-distribution of wealth” as a form of Socialist-Commie Plot to Destroy America are a distraction from the real re-distribution of wealth which is now eroding the purchasing capacity of America’s middle and lower economic classes and destroying our consumer based free market economy.

Bells, Books, Candles and S.B. 192

Which of the following does not belong with the other three items?

(a) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

(b) “Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”  Nevada Constitution, Ordinance

(c) “Sec:4. Liberty of conscience.  The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of conscience hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.”  Nevada Constitution, Article I, Section 4

(d) “Notwithstanding any provision of NRS 41.0305 to 41.039, 25 inclusive, but subject to the limitation on damages set forth in 26 NRS 41.035 when applicable, a person whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the governmental entity.  The court shall award costs and attorney’s fees to a person who prevails in an action brought against a governmental entity pursuant to this section.”  S.B. 192  *Defines a political subdivision

(ANS: ) Why doesn’t item D (S.B. 192) fit with the others?  Because it really isn’t about religious liberty.

The Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus explains:

“SB192, the  Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (NPRFA), is currently being considered by the Judiciary committee. NPRFA is a “statified” version of the federal RFRA (Religion Freedom Restoration Act), which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1997 because it overstepped Congress’ power to enforce the 14th Amendment (City of Boerne v Flores).  If enacted, it would “prohibit governmental entities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion.”

And what might those “burdens be?”  How about the “burden” of having to avoid asking about a person’s sexual orientation in a job interview?  Or, the “burden” of having to dispense a Morning After prescription to prevent an unwanted conception?  Or, the “burden” of having to include contraceptive prescriptions to an employee in a health insurance policy?  Or, the “burden” of having to have any health insurance coverage for any employee should the employer believe in faith healing alone?

Could it be the “burden” of having to interview a prospective employee who would need to have either Friday or Saturday off for religious services?   Could it be the “burden” of not discriminating against members of the LGBT community?  Or, might it be the “burden” of not discriminating against women in the workplace?  Against, unmarried women with children? Or, would the “burden” be that a young woman who had an abortion could not be summarily fired?

Time for Confession

There’s a problem shared by all confessional faiths.  And, in this instance “confessional” doesn’t refer to the Sacrament of Reconciliation — instead it is used more generally, and might be taken as synonymous with “creed.”

It might be the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles’ Creed, or in Protestant denominations the term ‘confession,’ like a creed but generally longer and more specific — The Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, or the Baptist Confession.  Be it creed or confession, the principles are essentially the same.  The profession constitutes orthodoxy as defined by some Christian religious denomination.

The first problem is the term “orthodoxy.”  The second problem is that the United States isn’t orthodox.

The last time Pew Research looked at religious affiliation in America, the numbers showed 51.3% were Protestants of various confessions; 23.9% were Catholics; 1.7% were members of the LDS Church.   1.7% of our population is Jewish, divided into Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and “other.” 0.7% of our population is Buddhist (also divided).  Another 0.6% is Muslim, divided into Shia, Sunni, and “other.”  Hindus add another 0.4% of the population.  Atheists are about 1.6% of the population, agnostics another 2.4%, and there’s a significant number, 12.1% of Americans, who described themselves as “nothing in particular.”

Here’s where the “orthodoxy problem” kicks in.  While 26.3% of American Protestants described themselves as “evangelical,” another 18.1% declared themselves to be members of “mainline” churches.   And, what to do with the other 4.7% of Americans who aren’t Christian in any form or confession? With the 16.1% of the Unaffiliated?  This is now; so why were the framers of the U.S. Constitution so adamant about preventing the establishment (read: preference) of any single creed or confession of orthodoxy in the newly forming United States of America?

First, there were practical matters — How does a new country reconcile the Congregationalism of John Adams with the Episcopal preferences of George Washington?  How do you keep a nation together with Presbyterians in the western portions, Baptists forming congregations in the midlands, Dutch Reformed Church members holding sway in New York, and Swedish Reformed Church members in Delaware?   Why were the framers so intent upon keeping religion off the table?  Secondly, there were memories of a dismal history in not so Jolly Old England.

Not one, but three civil wars

Most of the original colonists were English. England experienced three periods of civil war beginning in 1642 and not fully over until 1651.  Scholars are still mulling over whether the civil wars were religious or political, or some admixture thereof.   Let’s try “admixture” because some of the confusion between King and Countryside was related to the fact that there was the “High Church” (of England) considered entirely too Popish to be the “real” religion of God’s people; there were the Reformers (We’ll just adjust the Church of England a little bit and that should be enough); there were the Puritans (Get rid of the episcopal nature of the Church of England); there were the Presbyterians  who were at odds with the Independents.  Somewhere between and among the Royalists (usually Church of England) and the Puritans, and the Presbyterians, there was sufficient animosity to keep the fires of war burning and the battles raging.  This history wasn’t lost on the framers of the U.S. Constitution.  Granted, if we take 1646 as the end of the last English Civil War, then there were 143 years between the end of the war and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution — it’s been 148 since the end of our own Civil War, and “Lincoln” is a blockbuster movie… we’ve not forgotten ours either.

The point is that the framers were well aware that religious confessions and creeds were inextricably bound into the fabric of the political factions which caused not one but three civil wars in the Old Home Land.  This would be something to be avoided.

Uncomfortable Pluralism

There’s a trade off to be made between religious freedom and political rights.  Everyone has political rights, and everyone has religious freedom.  However, where does my right to freely practice my religion begin to impede your right to practice yours? Further, when does my right to practice any religion freely become perilously close to Theocracy as I impose my creed or confession on the behavior and beliefs of others?

If we take the dictionary definition of a theocracy (a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities,) at what point are those ecclesiastical authorities impinging upon political authority in a democracy?   No one promised pluralism was ever going to be comfortable.

Tyranny of the Majority or the Minority?

Our discomfort with pluralism is, happily, less obvious, and far less bloody, in 21st century American than in 17th century England.  That doesn’t mean it can’t be as obvious as the daily dose of confessional rhetoric emanating from religious leaders in the media.   Yes, about 75% of Americans claim Christianity in some form, but that covers everyone from those who still prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Unitarian-Universalists.  There’s no way to find any “orthodoxy” along that spectrum in terms of creeds, confessions, or the lack thereof.

So, what is S.B. 192 about?  If we were truly talking about religious freedom, then we’d be cognizant of the variations, of the pluralism, in American religious life and NOT trying to impose the confessionally based beliefs of some ecclesiastical authorities on those who don’t share in the creeds.  However, if we are talking about the imposition of confessionally based beliefs on the body politic then aren’t we essentially advocating the “right” of a minority to determine what the majority will or will not be allowed to do?

As uncomfortable as pluralism may be, it’s origins in the American colonies is well documented, and it’s implications for modern notions of the separation of church and state are the foundations of American tolerance and sense of community.   Just as I have no right to demand others who don’t share my basic religious precepts align their lives according to my lights, I would expect the same consideration from others.

I don’t expect others to put the same significance to bells as I might. I don’t expect a person to follow the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Quran or Hadith, or the Torah, or Rig-Veda or Avesta, or the Book of Mormon … and I’d be pleased to have others allow me the same consideration.  It’s hard enough in difficult times to keep one’s own candle burning, we don’t need to try to blow each others’ out.