Ideas – notesfromnokomis

Input > Output

Languishing has been something of an epidemic during the pandemic.[1] I prefer to think that I have been languidly accepting input, mainly from books, other publications, podcasts, and filmed programs (broadcast and streaming), while generating extremely little output. It’s probably not possible to generate more output than intake, but my ratio has been astonishingly low.

Some of the input is virtually valueless, that’s the languishing part. I have read a few Agatha Christie books this year, fun, diverting, virtue-free. I have watched the first nine seasons of the Perry Mason show, which my family delights in deriding me about.

To say the shows are formulaic is to belittle formulas. The victim or the alleged perpetrator (always of a murder) is invariably wealthy. The standard Mason client is innocent, if besieged with convincing evidence to the contrary. The actual murderer is typically unknown to anyone, except Mason, until the end of the show, when he or she breaks down under questioning and confesses to the crime.

Another part of the formula is the staggering creativity and determination of Mason. Though ably assisted by his secretary, Della Street, and his investigator, Paul Drake, they never solve the crime and rarely understand the big picture. Only Mason sees through the fake alibis, spurious motives, and callous hearts of the criminals. The bombastic prosecutor and his sycophantic police officers never even realize that it’s possible for someone other than Mason’s client to have committed the murder. How the supercilious, if honest, Hamilton Burger kept his job is astounding.

Fortunately, some of my current input is a bit more edifying. Rolf Dobelli, in The Art of Thinking Clearly (imagine “Thinking” to be upside down and red as it is on the cover of the book), is regaling me with three-page vignettes about how we don’t think clearly. Consider: the swimmer’s body illusion (swimming doesn’t give them that body type, they swim better because they have that body type) and the sunk cost[2] fallacy (considering costs to date causes us to improperly assess the cost/benefit of moving forward). There are many others: the winner’s curse, contagion bias, default effect, and planning fallacy to name a few, but I can’t give them all away – it would take too long.

Even deeper is Dambisa Moyo, who tackles a topic that should be near and dear to all of us in Edge of Chaos. The subtitle is Why Democracy is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth—and How to Fix it. Moyo was born and (mostly) raised in Zambia, then educated at universities in Zambia, the US, and England. After stints at the World Bank and Goldman Sachs, she became an author and speaker, and excels at both.

The book is wide-ranging, but I most enjoyed her discussion about suggested democratic reforms. She determined whether the following countries have adopted the following reforms: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, United Kingdom, and United States.

1. Ability to commit to long-term agreements. This seems crucial, especially for military alliances. Whatever you think of the merits of the Paris Climate Agreement, you must agree that embracing them, then disengaging, then reengaging, does not look good. No country has a way to lock in long-term agreements.

2. Campaign finance restrictions. This is a bit open ended, but generally considered necessary to reduce the undue influence of great wealth. Given that 11 of the 14 countries in her list (including the US) have adopted some form of restrictions, it is a relatively easy standard to meet.

3. Restrictions on ability to take on high-pay opportunities. This is supposed to prevent government officials from moving to positions that might encourage graft and self-dealing, whether before or after government service. Seven countries (including the US) have adopted some form of this reform, typically a cooling off period.

4. Extended elector cycles (more than 5 years). No country has adopted this reform, though US senators serve for six years.

5. Term limits for legislative and executive offices. Six countries (including the US) limit executive terms; only Mexico limits the terms of legislators.

6. Minimum qualifications for office. Only two countries are listed as adopting this reform. Indonesia requires candidates to “believe in one true god,” to have attended high school, to be “physically and mentally healthy,” and to not have declared bankruptcy. I like that last part. In Singapore, candidates must be at least 45 years old. In the US, all federal elected offices are subject to an age minimum, but typically state office holders are not.

7. Design of electoral districts to incentivize competition. This is one of my favorites – we need less gerrymandering. We need voters to elect representatives, not for politicians to select or create safe seats. (Here think about Hillary Clinton deciding to move to NY to run for the Senate.) No country has adopted this reform. In the US, some states have or, in any event, have tried.

8. Mandatory voting. Four countries have adopted this reform. I think more people should vote, but I’m not comfortable forcing everyone to vote.

9. Minimum voting requirements. This seems incompatible with the former reform and has not yet been adopted by any of the 14 countries in this survey.

10. Weighted voting system. Only France has adopted this reform. Some states in the US use versions of a weighted system. I endorse this reform idea because I believe it would drive politicians toward the center, leading to fewer far-left or far-right extremists.

Mexico has adopted the most reforms (5); Germany the fewest (0). The US has adopted three. For the record, none of the adoptions have occurred because of the book.

Whether or not you have been languishing, please think about these suggested reforms and consider whether they or other reforms would enhance our political system.

[1] See for example — https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/well/mind/covid-mental-health-languishing.html

[2] I have a sunk-cost story that is over 30 years old and still causes friends in the know to laugh out loud when they think of it.

Podcasts

I am not typically an early adapter of technology. I purchased my first personal computer, HD TV, and smart phone at least five years after they had hit the mainstream. And I was usually complaining about the price and unnecessity of the item right up until the moment I started using it. At which point: Eureka!

So it is with podcasts. What took me so long? These things are awesome. They come is so many flavors and sizes, there is something for everyone.

First, what is a podcast? According to Wikipedia, “a podcast is an episodic series of digital audio or video files that a user can download in order to listen.” [1] A podcast does not involve a person reading a book or a series of lectures, which have their own charms, it’s much better. The podcaster might be reading, but it’s something that was written specifically to be presented in a podcast, something intended to be listened to. Some podcasts allow modest interaction, not during the podcast of course, which is recorded, but after, often in the form of questions or a supplementary website.

I came by podcasts slowly, fending off many recommendations from friends because – why do I need podcasts. After reading Lost to the West, by Lars Brownworth (which I recommend), I discovered that he had produced a podcast called 12 Byzantine Rulers. Turns out, he wrote the book after attaining some acclaim from the podcast, which is a bit sensationalist for my amateur historian sensibilities. Brownworth tends to highlight the most salacious or vicious stories and rumors from antiquity. His style is entertaining, but it left me wanting more.[2]

My search led me to The History of Byzantium; I was captivated.[3] The podcast is not for the faint of heart; I’m up to episode 195 (which covered roughly 550 years, starting in 500 A.D. or so) and there are still 400 years to go. The podcaster, Robin Pierson, is outstanding: great voice, sense of humor, terrific research and writing skills. He also provides a complementary (as well as complimentary) website and Facebook page with maps and pictures.[4] I have read many books about the Roman Empire, but I had done nothing systematic. Pierson is systematic and it has helped me better understand the scope and nuance of the empire.

He recaps the centuries. He highlights social features (marriage, education, etc.) with special episodes. He surveys the provinces and provides much general information about empire-wide practices and changes. And, of course, he provides the nuts-and-bolts of the historical narrative — battles, wars, assassinations, and plagues, both mighty and petty. The podcast is a tour de force. I cannot recommend it more highly. I am so glad I have many episodes left.

Because I was late to the party, I didn’t realize that Pierson was reprising Michael Duncan, whose The History of Rome podcast might be the seminal history podcast. He starts at the beginning with Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves, continues through the fall of the republic and the rise of the empire, and concludes with the fall of the west. I’m on episode 161, the Vandals and Goths and Huns (oh my) are ready to assert themselves. The podcast ends on episode 179, so I’ll be able to wander back over to the History of Byzantium and finish off the entire 2,100-year history of the Roman polity.

Pierson and Duncan both turned their podcasts into careers. Duncan has subsequently published books. Both have led Roman history-oriented tours. Both have embraced their topic, which was not a significant part of their former professional lives.[5] The lesson for all of us – pursue your passion, pick a subject you love and champion it, perhaps you’ll create a new career for yourself.

In the meantime, I’m going to need a new podcast at some point. I’m open to suggestion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast Should it be “listen to”? Shouldn’t it be “listen to”? Well, should it or shouldn’t it? I enjoy when seeming opposites are actually the same – consider: flammable and inflammable, thaw and unthaw, loosen and unloosen.

[2] Brownworth is not a historian.

[3] I have always been fascinated by Rome. Through the years, I have been increasingly interested in the lesser known latter part of the empire, which is usually referred to as the Byzantine Empire, even though it shouldn’t be.

[4] https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=history%20of%20byzantium%20podcast&epa=SEARCH_BOX

[5] Duncan was a fishmonger and Pierson a TV producer before turning to researching and delivering podcasts.

Bucket Lists

At the local library recently, I saw a chalk board, which said: Before I die, I want to _____. The venerable Bucket List has been co-opted by our library into a talking point. The Bucket List is a tried, tested, and true concept in our culture.

1000 Places To See Before You Die, by Patricia Shultz, available on Amazon for small dollars, but hard to pull off without big ones;

100 Things To Do Before High School, a TV series that I have never heard of and a bit passe[1] for anybody reading this blog;

30 Things to Do Before You Turn 30 (https://gentwenty.com/bucket-list-30-things-to-do-before-you-turn-30/), I did about 10 and it’s too late to do more;

40 Best Books to Read Before You Die (https://www.listchallenges.com/independents-40-best-books-to-read-before-you-die), I’ve read 26 and the others seem pretty good. This list is certainly easier to deal with than

400 Books to Read Before You Die (https://www.listchallenges.com/400-books-to-read-before-you-die), I’ve read 171.

I could go on, the list of things-to-do lists is practically endless. People love telling other people what they should do. Some people make their own lists. The year my friend Philip turned 50, he decided to do 50 things that he had never done before. I pretty sure he met his goal; he can be quite maniacal.

Even people without a Bucket List have Bucket List items. It is beyond a cliché[2] at this point. Do any of you have a literal list – written down or typed? Or is it just in your head?

I have three literal lists: American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Movies of All Time (I’ve seen 81), a list of the 100 greatest novels of all time (I’ve read 35), and a list of the 100 greatest non-fiction books (I’ve read 22 and most of the rest do not interest me). The lists of books were from reputable sources at the time, but I didn’t make a note of them. Even though it seems that I don’t care anymore (because I haven’t checked anything off these three lists in over two years), I still have the actual paper lists. I might still care.

For many people, the Bucket List is primarily about travel: Iceland, Antarctica, Mount this or that, some island somewhere warm, a museum, a wall,[3] a game of some sort (the Olympics, World Cup, etc.) There are many great things and events waiting for all of us to visit and enjoy. My Bucket List is different.

I had two “conversations” (by text) recently with two different friends about my Bucket List with markedly different results. John sent a group text to a few friends, something along the lines of “hey, let’s get together, how about a trip to Vegas.” I replied “It’s on my Bucket List” and he responded “I know what that means” because he does. Laura was in Laos on business and sent me a text about getting together when she returned.[4] I typed “Laos is on my Bucket List,” and she replied “Oh my gosh . . . take it OFF” because she didn’t know what I meant.

You see, my Bucket List consists entirely of things I don’t want to do. My Bucket List is opposite world. Africa is on many Bucket Lists, including mine. I actively plan to never go there. I realize that makes me seem a bit small-minded. I don’t care. I don’t like being uncomfortable and every time I think about Africa, I think about how hot it is, how warm the water is, who little safe water there is, how many bugs and snakes and etc. there are, how may nonfunctioning governments there are, how many people with nothing to lose there are, and I remember that in America, there is air conditioning, safe cold water, and plenty of awesome things to see and do. I have no intention of ever going to Africa.

I know that I am missing many awesome things: Victoria Falls, the Pyramids, Cape Town, mega-fauna (lions, rhinos, and hippos, oh my), mega-deserts, and much more, including many fascinating cultures and foods. I don’t care; to me, it is not worth the discomfort and fear that I would endure. Watching lions hunt buffalo on NatGeo is not the same as seeing it live and in person. Then again, very few tourists actually see lions hunt buffalo live and in person.

Many completely normal things are on my Bucket List — mowing the lawn, attending the ballet, growing a beard, drinking bourbon, wearing a tank top, body art, piercings. The Bucket List I’m talking about now is not a literal list – it’s a virtual list, but one that I enjoy putting together. And it is essentially infinite, there are many things that I do not want to do.

Don’t get me wrong – there are also plenty of things that I want to do. I just don’t put those things on a list. I can’t think of anything that is so important to me, that not doing it will cause me to be disappointed. I’ve already accomplished the most important things in life: good education, great wife, wonderful kids.[5]

Maybe I will go to Istanbul and see the Theodosian land walls, maybe I’ll attend a Duke/UNC basketball game, maybe I’ll sit down and drink a beer with my friend Charlie Poole. But it won’t be because it’s on a list—though that last item really should be.

[1] No automatic accent.

[2] Word added this accent automatically. Is that a good thing?

[3] There are lots of walls in the world. They tend to do better as attractions than as obstacles – Wailing Wall, Great Wall of China, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall – though the walls of Constantinople served their makers well for hundreds of years.

[4] Laura is currently in New Zealand. She travels a lot. New Zealand is not on my Bucket List.

[5] I want to mention two other “accomplishments” of note, that were not important: a hole-in-one at Pinehurst and attending the Red Sox win that clinched the 2004 World Series.

Selling Kidneys

Sometime in the early 1990s, I wrote a paper for a law school class titled If Not You, To Whom Does Your Body Belong. In the nature of most law school papers, it was adequate to the task at hand without being insightful or in any way useful.[1] But it raised a real issue that has continued to vex me: why do we have so many people on a waiting list for organ donation, when the free market is readily available to fill the supply. (Technical answer – because the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act outlaws the sale of human organs.)[2]

The New York Times stated in 1998, that in 1993 “roughly half of the 138,000 people who needed hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys and pancreases were listed for transplant, and fewer than one quarter of those received organs.” Half of the people in need of a transplant weren’t even on the transplant list in large part because patients without adequate insurance often are not even informed that a transplant is an option.

Forbes discussed the issue in a March 11, 1996 column, claiming that over 3,000 Americans died in 1995 while awaiting an organ. They stated “The basic problem is this: The government monopoly that runs the transplant market is terribly bad at creating supply to satisfy the demand.”

A proposal to allow prisoners on death row to avoid execution by donating organs was described as far-fetched and cockamamie.[3] Yet the imbalance between supply and demand was killing people. In 1997, 2,000 people died while waiting for a kidney transplant.[4] Both papers (from which these facts are taken) essentially blamed organs donors – saying (rightly) that we need more, but without addressing the elephant in the surgical ward, which is that everyone in the system benefits materially, except the indispensable donor. The surgeon gets paid and paid extremely well. The hospital gets paid and paid extremely well.[5] The organ recipient gets a new lease on life. The organ donor gets our appreciative thanks. It clearly isn’t enough.

According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 114,429 people are currently awaiting an organ transplant. Many of those potential transplants would save a life, all would improve a life. Thus far this year, 21,042 transplants have been performed based on donations from 10,120 donors.[6]

The reason I wrote the paper in the first place was because of a law in Florida that presumed consent to a donation of corneas whenever a person died in an automobile accident. “Presumed consent” is pretty sketchy ethically,[7] though it is a straightforward way to address the supply problem, at least for corneas in Florida.

Other, less confiscatory, solutions have been suggested. Pennsylvania proposed granting $300 stipends to donors to help pay for their (eventual) funeral expenses. Even that tepid plan met with editorial criticism, though in fairness, some of the criticism was because $300 was unlikely to induce anyone to donate.[8] A few years later,[9] the theoretical ante had been upped to $2,000 but was derided as “ethically objectionable and of dubious effectiveness” by Mark Fox, the director of transplant ethics and policy at the University of Rochester.

Another potential solution is termed “paired kidney donation.”[10] This scheme pairs a person who would like to donate to a relative but is incompatible with a compatible person who would like to donate to their own relative. It’s complicated, might run afoul of the National Transplant Act (because agreeing to a quid pro quo might be “valuable consideration”), and continues to rely on donations. In the meantime, according to the author, every year 8% of the patients on a transplant list either die or become too sick to remain on the list.

While we are prohibiting the free market from working its invisible-hand magic, people (mostly hospitals and insurance companies) are paying more for annual dialysis treatment than a kidney operation costs. According to Michele Goodwin, a law school professor, Medicaid paid $60,000 to $90,000 per annual dialysis treatment in 2006 compared to $70,000 or so for a kidney transplant.[11] Her plan was to unleash federalism and let states determine whether to allow their residents to buy and sell organs.

One country already allows its citizens to buy and sell kidneys. Not surprisingly, if you believe that supply and demand equalize when they are allowed to, that country has no waiting list and a price per kidney of approximately $5,000. What is surprising is that the country with no waiting list is not a member of the enlightened West; it is Iran. https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/25/organ-donation-kidneys-iran/ There is legitimate criticism that allowing the sale of organs might impose undue burdens on the poor – who can be imprisoned in Iran for failure to pay debt. But at a minimum, a legal market, with whatever flaws are endemic to it, is better than allowing a black market to expand.

Our country has advocates of a free market solution. J.H. Huebert, wrote in 2007 that “Congress could end the shortage [of organs for transplant] right now by repealing the ban on organ sales. Until it does, it will have the blood on its hands of those 6,000 people who die each year.[12] See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/12/to-save-lives-allow-individuals-to-sell-their-organs/#13b190ae5627

Count me among the Americans who believe we should embrace a free market for the sale of kidneys – as a test case. Safeguards could be built in to the system, which already has substantial constrictions based on health and safety. Ethical considerations have delayed an obvious solution for too long and to me are of little moment compared to substantially enhancing the lives of the 93,000 Americans currently awaiting a kidney transplant,[13] while the other 300,000,000 of us walk around with a kidney to spare.

[1] The egomaniacal William Evelyn “Bill” McNeal, portrayed hilariously by Phil Harman on NewsRadio, once received a review that described him as “adequate.” For the rest of the episode, he raved about his adequatulance and his adequasivity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxpuKXhlss

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organ_Transplant_Act_of_1984

[3] Toledo Blade editorial on March 23, 1998, quoting an unnamed “assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine.”

[4] Mark D. Somerson, Columbus Dispatch, October 18, 1998.

[5] A liver transplant cost $250,000 at the time according to a New York Times May 5, 1998 column.

[6] https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/

[7]https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/presumed_consent_not_answer_to_solving_organ_shortage_in_us_researchers_say.

[8] Dayton Daily News, May 24, 1999.

[9] Nicholas Kristof column in New York Times that I didn’t date. It was in a folder between articles dated May 24, 1999 and March 27, 2006.

[10] Forbes, March 27, 2006 column by Robert A. Montgomery, the Chief of Transplantation at Johns Hopkins University.

[11] Forbes, October 15, 2007. The transplant patient would also need roughly $5,000 of annual maintenance medicine.

[12] Columbus Dispatch, June 13, 2007.

[13] http://lkdn.org/kidney_tx_waiting_list.html

Big History

I like learning and thinking about the big picture. I am more likely to read a book about the Byzantines than about a particular emperor, about the 20th century than about 1929 or 1968. Imagine my wonder upon encountering Big History.

I came to the subject obliquely. I found and read (in 2014) a book called This Fleeting World: a short history of humanity. The book was certainly big picture; it covered all of human history in under 100 pages, separated into three sections: the era of foragers, the agrarian era, and the modern era. If you don’t like names and dates, this is the history book for you. It was a good read, interesting, etc., but its real import (to me) was the introduction to author David Christian.

Christian is credited with coining the term “Big History.” The concept is simple: tell the story of the universe within the confines of single course, whether in high school or college. It’s audacious, fascinating, and (of necessity) multi-disciplinary.

Audacious is describing the history of the universe with four words: cosmos, earth, life, humanity, as Walter Alvarez does in his book A Most Improbable Journey. That is the simple progression, each succeeding concept impossible without whatever precedes it. Obviously, each word expresses much and needs significant explanation.

The typical view of history starts with 99.9% of the universe in the distant rear-view mirror. Most history starts with writing or artifacts and focuses exclusively on humans. Big history starts at the very beginning, which requires forays into chemistry and physics. Starting at the beginning reveals how lucky we are. We tend to think that what has happened was inevitable. But almost nothing is inevitable, instead history is contingent — agency and chance influence almost everything that happens.

The Goldilocks principle is alive and well. Gravity is just right. Any less or more and the Earth would be a very different planet. The Earth’s distance from the sun is just right. Any more or less and Earth would be a very different place. The moon is just right. Any bigger or smaller, farther away or closer, and the Earth would be a very different place.

Something I never thought about before, but which Alvarez and other Big History thinkers and writers focus on, is the creation of elements. Do you know where the elements come from? When the Big Bang occurred, the universe was approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. So where did oxygen and iron and carbon come from?

The answer is the stars. Somewhere along the line, stars formed. Their heat synthesized new elements and when the stars died, the resulting explosions scattered those new elements about the universe. That’s when planets and other objects started forming. The universe remains mostly hydrogen and helium, but planets are whatever they are. Earth happens to be mostly oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron.

Big History uses chemistry and physics to explain what happened billions of years ago, introducing concepts like radiocarbon dating. It uses biology and geology to explain what has happened on Earth through the rise of (very) modern humans, introducing concepts like genetic analysis and mathematical modeling.

Another important Big History concept is “scale.” Alvarez conveys how much time has elapsed on Earth by stating that human history starts roughly 5,000 years ago and that Earth history starts roughly 5,000 million years ago. Much has happened without our intervention. Alas, our intervention is becoming increasingly decisive.[1]

Another way to think about Big History is to emphasize inflection points, moments of fundamental change. A source (which I didn’t write down, how embarrassing) separates history into eight inflection points. We have already (briefly) discussed five of them: the Big Bang, the formation of stars, the formation of elements, the formation of Earth, and the beginning of life on Earth. Once life began, it contingently increased in complexity, culminating in us.

The human span comprises the next three inflection points, pretty similar to those espoused by Christian in This Fleeting World. The transformative human-centered moments are:

When we started collective learning,
The farming revolution that allowed people to be able to do things other than grow or collect food, and
The modern revolution, which includes leveraging our efforts with efficient energy and the quickening pace of knowledge accumulation and transfer.[2]

Books have been and will be written about any one of these topics. The concept behind Big History is to encapsulate everything that has happened into one book or course so that we appreciate the giant movements and events. Much of the history studied and written today emphasizes a micro-event or a small niche of something or other. Big History is partially a reaction to this increasing specialization, but it is also much more. A branch of Big History (according to Alvarez) is little big history, where a writer focuses on the entire history of a particular feature of the human experience. For instance, Mark Kurlansky has written Salt and Cod, which concentrate exclusively on those two food items.

There is certainly room for books about specific events or people. Otherwise, we would be unable to accumulate and build on the knowledge accrued by others. But there is also great value in a broad big-picture approach to history and the world, and A Most Improbable Journey is a great introduction to Big History.

It won’t spoil anything for me to quote Alvarez’s last paragraph, “Almost 14 billion years of Cosmic history, more than 4.6 billion years of Earth and Life history, a couple of million years of Human history, all of it constrained by the laws of Nature but playing out in an entirely unpredictable way because of countless contingencies – this history has produced the human situation in which we live. We few, we fortunate few, are the ones who have inherited this world and this situation, and it’s our actions that will influence the next chapter in the unfolding journey of Big History.”

[1] Alvarez gives another (crazy) example of scale. He explains that the current humans on Earth will directly produce roughly one billion people. A billion is 10 to the 9th; approximately that many grains can be found in two handfuls of fine sand. But the current human population is capable of producing 10 to the 25th people — if all available eggs and sperm were used as efficiently as possible. In terms of sand, it would take ten Grand Canyons full to yield 10 to the 25th grains. That is a lot sand. Imagine if there were that many humans.

[2] What might the next inflection point be? Life on other planets? The emergence of artificial intelligence that supplants us? A new ice age? Any other ideas?

Tax Reform

I love the idea of tax reform. I love the idea of tax simplification even better. Based on my limited knowledge of tax bills being discussed in Washington, they collectively deliver neither reform nor simplification. I understand that these goals are not easy to achieve. What worthwhile goal is? Tweaking some deductions and lowering some rates is not tax reform, unless you consider exchanging a used white oxford shirt for a new white oxford shirt wardrobe reform.

A big picture look at the tax reform construct reveals:

Corporate tax rates are lowered significantly. I think this is probably a good idea because the rates are high compared to corporate rates in other countries. But it is no panacea. Companies make few large decisions based solely on tax rates. Moreover, companies almost never hire more people because taxes are lower; they hire people when the new hires can help the company generate more profits. Tax rates influence how much profit a company gets to keep, not whether it will be profitable.

Lower tax rates are not reform. Changing the tax treatment of dividends would be a significant and long overdue reform. Currently if a company with $10 million in profit pays $5 million in dividends to shareholders, it must pay taxes on the $10,000,000 profit. That may or may not be fair. What is certainly unfair is to then tax the shareholders on the $5,000,000 in dividends that they received. That is double taxation, both the company and its shareholders pay taxes (though at different rates) on the same $5,000,000. As far as I can tell, no change is contemplated.

The estate tax is being eliminated. This is true reform, but it is also virtually meaningless. Of the 2.6 million people who died in 2013, only 4,700 paid federal estate tax – that’s a bit less than one person out of every 550 who died. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-many-people-pay-estate-tax

This tax is often derisively called the “death tax,” as if that makes is worse than any other tax. Taxes are just the way a government pays for the things it does. The focus of any tax reform should be to ensure that government can pay for its own operations and to make paying taxes easier for the taxpayers. Lessening the tax burden is a separate issue, though more important. The best way to lessen the tax burden is to reduce governmental operations. Our politicians seem incapable of doing that.

The bottom line is that the estate tax doesn’t affect many people and doesn’t raise much money (about $20 billion a year). Instead of eliminating it, which would allow the mega-rich to avoid taxes on potentially billions of dollars of appreciation,[1] we should raise the floor. At the current $5,000,000 or so, few family farms need to be sold to pay estate taxes (a common claim among detractors of estate taxes), but to make sure it never happens, let’s raise the floor to $50,000,000. Then only the truly wealthy would be subject to this tax and it would continue to pay for some minimal level of governmental operations and would undercut opponents who say that tax reform inordinately benefits the wealthy.

Deduction tweaking is a mixed bag. The current concept calls for a higher standard deduction but lesser itemized deductions. Most analysis suggests that the majority of lower and middle class taxpayers will pay less (for a few years[2]), but that some significant minority (primarily those in states with high state and local taxes) will pay more. There’s really nothing inherently wrong with that – the current system has the opposite effect or did when it was instituted.
The reform is going to increase the budget deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Maybe a little less, maybe a little more depending on how the economy does. Of course, nobody knows the exact number, only that the deficit will be grow from the current $400 billion or so. And here I thought we wanted the deficit to be decrease.

Tax reform should be budget neutral in concept, it shouldn’t assume a $1 trillion plus hole. I am constantly amazed at how few Republican politicians are concerned about adding substantially to the deficit when they control the budgetary process. Oh how they caterwaul when deficit increase while the Democrats are in charge.

In short, this particular version of “tax reform” is not very reformy. They should call it the tax change bill because they are just making a few changes. They should also tell POTUS that his billionaire status will be enhanced not reduced by the tax plan. POTUS seems to think that eliminating the estate tax will cost his family a fortune. Although we can’t know for sure because he refuses to release his tax returns,[3] it is virtually inconceivable that, even if he pays a bit more annually (which is unlikely), his family is a loser in aggregate. If he is worth close to $10 billion (as he claims), the elimination of estate taxes will save his family hundreds of millions.

I believe we should engage in serious tax reform that simplifies the tax system and is revenue neutral. Currently the federal income tax raises approximately $1.7 trillion. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from The total personal income of taxpayers is $16 trillion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/ Personal income includes income from all sources: salary, dividends, interest, pass-through businesses, etc.

I would treat them all the same, income is income. [4] I would eliminate all personal deductions, all personal exemptions. ALL OF THEM. That is reform. That is simple. That would allow us to file our taxes on a postcard.

Furthermore, I would ignore all income below some floor, let’s call it $30,000. A single taxpayer would have the first $30,000 of income ignored, a married couple the first $60,000. All income over this level would be taxed in an increasing path until we reached $1.7 trillion in taxes.

I can’t find enough good information that enables me to do the math.[5] But it’s not complicated. Think about it this way – the next $10,000 of income for every taxpayer could be taxes at 10%, the next $10,000 at 15%, etc., until we reach the number that income taxes currently raise. There would be many tax brackets, but they would be based solely on income and would not affect deductions or exemptions or anything else – because there is nothing else. The top rate might have to be as high as 35%, but we need to average “only” 10% or so to raise $1.7 trillion based on total personal income of $16 trillion.

A simple plan like this would allow people to make decisions based solely on their income, not whether this or that is deductible. The biggest problem with this plan (other than the fact that it will never happen) is trying to find new jobs for the various tax professionals who would be rendered obsolete. I would not consider that a tragedy.

[1] Company founders can avoid all tax liability under the new plan by never selling their stock.

[2] Many of the reforms that benefit lower and middle income taxpayers are scheduled to terminate in the next few years. This is necessary to ensure that the deficit grows only so much. It’s a game the partisans of the tax plan employ to keep the estimated increase in the deficit below a certain level for political reasons. They insist that the reforms that terminate will be extended, meaning that the true deficit will be greater than currently estimated.

[3] What is he hiding? Hasn’t he said something similar about people who didn’t want to disclose something?

[4] I believe the country would support one massive exception – “profits” from the sale of a personal residence should not count as income. “Profits” is in quotes because most “profits” from the sale of a personal residence are really just inflation. Most homes do not truly appreciate.

[5] Believe me, I tried. I have the spreadsheets to prove it.

On Political Moderation

I know very little about the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. I do know one thing: Obamacare was approved in the US Senate by a vote of 60-39. Every single Democratic senator voted for the bill. Every single vote against the bill was cast by a Republican. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 (Republican senator Jim Bunning did not vote.)

I also know very little about the intricacies of the American Health Care Act, colloquially known as Trumpcare. As things currently stand, the bill will receive zero votes from Democratic senators. If the bill is to become law, it will happen based solely (in the Senate) on votes by Republican senators.

Without commenting on the merits and demerits of Obamacare, Trumpcare, or any other potential national health care system, I am confident in exclaiming that enacting significant legislation related to health care along strict party lines is stupid. STUPID!

The country is not split on strict party lines. The country is moderate. Current polling from Gallup indicates that 30% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, that 26% consider themselves Republicans, and that 42% consider themselves independent.[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx Gallup polling from a year ago was essentially the same: 28% Democratic, 28% Republican, 42% Independent.

Unfortunately, voting does not reflect this independence. Below are the votes cast in congressional races since 2000.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	63,173,815	61,776,554	3,623,561
2014	40,081,282	35,624,357	2,498,286
2012	58,228,253	59,645,531	4,243,456
2010	44,827,441	38,980,192	2,849,460
2008	52,249,491	65,237,840	4,934,468
2006	35,857,334	42,338,795	2,658,668
2004	55,958,144	52,969,786	4,139,261
2002	37,332,552	33,795,885	3,414,165
2000	46,992,383	46,585,167	4,959,610

Total	434,700,695	436,954,107	33,320,935
	48.03%	48.28%	3.68%

Even though 42% of Americans consider themselves independent, fewer than 4% of the votes in congressional races are cast for candidates who aren’t either Republican or Democratic. And the situation is even worse if you consider the winners.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	241	194	0
2014	247	188	0
2012	234	201	0
2010	242	193	0
2008	178	257	0
2006	202	233	0
2004	232	202	1
2002	229	205	1
2000	221	212	2

Total	2,026	1,885	4
	51.75%	48.15%	0.10%

Thus, 42% of Americans are independent, but only 4% of votes are cast for independent candidates. And those votes managed to elect only four Independents to the House of Representatives, barely one tenth of one percent of the members elected in the last nine elections.

The picture is slightly better in the Senate, where 4.5% of votes have been cast for independents.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	40,402,790	51,496,682	3,492,180
2014	24,631,488	20,875,493	2,047,814
2012	39,130,984	49,998,693	3,743,446
2010	32,680,704	29,110,733	4,078,235
2008	28,863,067	33,650,061	2,625,551
2006	25,437,934	32,344,708	2,889,132
2004	39,920,562	44,754,618	3,302,332
2002	20,626,192	18,956,449	1,979,132
2000	36,725,431	36,780,875	4,410,378

Total	288,419,152	317,968,312	28,568,201
	45.42%	50.08%	4.50%

Alas, only 2% of Senators are putative independents. I say “putative” because Senators Lieberman, Sanders, and King associate with the Democratic Party rather than with the Republican Party or a third party.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	52	46	2
2014	54	44	2
2012	45	53	2
2010	47	51	2
2008	41	57	2
2006	49	49	2
2004	55	44	1
2002	51	48	1
2000	50	50	0

Total	444	442	14
	49.33%	49.11%	1.56%

The total votes and the total seats are roughly equivalent for the two parties that duopolize the political process in this country. The political leadership in the country is essentially split between Republicans and Democrats. Accordingly, there is no reason for either party to think that any short-term virtual monopoly on the legislative process – based on control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency – will be long-lived. History suggests that it won’t.

History also suggests that if, say, the Democrats have the short-term ability to impose a health care system along strict party lines, Republicans will devote considerable effort to impair that system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system. Similarly, if the Republicans impose their will and repeal and replace Obamacare, the Democrats will devote considerable effort to impair the new system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system.

None of this is good for the country. I would suggest that the parties don’t care. They care more about their party than about finding long-term solutions that are supported by a broad swathe of the republic. They would rather force-feed a political solution that is compatible with their ideology.

A better path would be to craft solidly bipartisan legislation that would be more likely to provide a long-term solution and less likely to inspire the ire of the other party. Below is a proposal that might help ensure that legislation is bipartisan. It could be used whenever our national legislature is crafting broad policy implicating a long-term national issue, like health care, tax reform, or massive infrastructure funding.

The Senate Majority Leader selects 25 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
The Senate Minority Leader selects 35 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
That group of 60 senators crafts legislation that at least 51 of them support.

Quixotic? No doubt. But such a process would ensure that the influence of Senators inhabiting the far left and the far right would be minimized. It would result in legislation that would necessarily be more moderate than either party would propose and enact on its own. It would lead to more legislation that reflects the predominant moderateness of the country, instead of rewarding hard-core partisans. It would result in long-term solutions that are less likely to turn into political footballs at subsequent elections, allowing us to focus on real issues, not politics.

I harbor no illusions that any such process will be adopted. It would diminish the power of people who currently possess much power. They would never allow that because they care more about themselves and their party than they care about their country. But I continue to hope that our leaders will adopt the principles of moderation that a plurality of the country embraces instead of continuing to engage in the rancorous partisanship that is currently crippling Washington. I remain a moderate idealist.

[1] I consider myself independent, though I am a registered Republican because the last primary in which I voted was a Republican primary.

Congress should be a fiduciary

The word “fiduciary” has many different definitions all revolving around the concept of trust and acting in the interest of another person or entity. Here are two definitions:

“An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another’s benefit.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fiduciary

“A fiduciary owes (among other obligations) the duty of loyalty, full disclosure, obedience, diligence, and of accounting for all monies handed over, to the principal. A fiduciary must not exploit his or her position of trust and confidence for personal gain at the expense of the principal. Law demands a fiduciary to exercise highest degree of care and utmost good faith in maintenance and preservation of the principal’s assets and rights, and imposes compensatory as well as punitive damages on the erring fiduciary.” http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fiduciary.html

I am currently a fiduciary as an officer and member of the board of directors of a non-profit corporation. At least two friends have appointed me as the executor of their estates and trustee of their trusts. At one time, I served at the trustee of a retirement plan. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the duties and obligations of a fiduciary.

I can think of many friends and family members whom I would be comfortable appointing as a fiduciary. I can think of many other people that I would consider appropriate fiduciaries. Many, probably most, judges, teachers, clergy, lawyers, doctors, and plain old regular folks would make excellent fiduciaries. There are millions of fiduciaries in this country at any given time, acting in the best interests of various orphans, incompetent people, and others. Each of them is charged with acting in the best interests of the person or entity for whom they are the fiduciary.

Yet at any given time, the 600 or so people with the most direct influence over the other 320 million of us act on our behalf without the strictures and responsibilities of a fiduciary. I’m talking about Congress,[1] the executive branch,[2] and governors.[3] There are of course numerous others, Supreme Court Justices for example, who exercise considerable influence, though not as directly. I want to focus on the politicians.

Each of them is charged with protecting the constitution. I have taken a similar oath as both an attorney and a member of my local community’s Parks and Recreation Commission. The latter oath is bizarrely substantive given that the commission is advisory and exercises no direct control over anything.

I think we should demand more from our members of Congress, certainly more than a Columbus suburb demands of its Parks and Recreation Commission members. We should require members of Congress to be fiduciaries of our country. We should require them to act in the best interest of the United States.

It’s pretty clear that they currently do not. I can think of at least three interests that members of Congress put ahead of the country’s.

The first, the most obvious, and the most insidious, is their own reelection. Have you ever heard of a member of Congress whose most important goal wasn’t reelection? The disproportionate time devoted to raising campaign funds is another strong indicator of the member’s real interest.

The second obvious interest that trumps the country is party. So many votes in Congress are along party lines that it is unreasonable to believe the results are solely driven by the merits of a given issue. Mickey Edwards wrote a book, The Parties Versus the People, (review coming soon) that outlines the problem and some reasonable steps to address it.

Finally, and (perhaps) most reasonably, many members of Congress put the interests of their district or state ahead of the country. How else to explain the various bridges to nowhere and monuments to nothing that pork barrel politics has engendered through the years? This is tied up with reelection, but it is also something more.

There are likely other interests that unduly influence members of Congress more than the best interests of our country, among them personal gain. I believe members of Congress and high ranking members of the executive branch should always put our country first. I believe they should act in the best interests of the country and that they should be held to the same fiduciary duties as trustees. I believe they should “exercise highest degree of care and utmost good faith in maintenance and preservation of the [country’s] assets and rights.” As long as we continue to complacently vote (almost) exclusively for Republicans and Democrats, they will have no reason to act in the country’s best interest.

[1] 100 Senators and 435 members of Congress

[2] Including the President, Vice President, members of the cabinet, and various high level appointees and directors (for example of the CIA and FBI). Here I estimate 65 for simple math, the only kind I have conquered.

[3] 50 governors, who are different because, in my opinion, they should act in the best interests of their state, though of course not to the detriment of the country.

On Naming Public Buildings

The renaming Calhoun College incident got me thinking about something that has troubled me for years: naming things for politicians. The thing might be a building, it might be an airport, it might be a bridge or a highway or an intersection, or really just about anything.

In the private sector, things are named for a substantial donor. Colleges are especially prone to sell naming rights and it can get a little goofy. For instance, naming a room within a named wing of a named building, which is part of a named complex. And then of course, the piano or books in the room might have been donated and have a commemorative label. Enough already. (Disclaimer: I have never donated enough to have a room or building named after me, but there are a couple of bricks somewhere indicating that my family donated to this or that project.)

I understand the business of naming rights. It is at its core a bargained-for transaction. I may not always agree about the economics,[1] but fundamentally it is a commercial transaction. Even so, everything we name for a person, family, or company should have a sunset provision. The naming rights should lapse. Professional sports teams figured this out with naming rights to their stadiums. It’s time for the public sector to get on board. Naming rights should be an ongoing income stream, not a one-time windfall.

The Lincoln Center has also figured this out. They received a substantial donation ($57 million in today’s dollars) and renamed the former Philharmonic Hall the Avery Fisher Hall. Years later the center considered changing the name of Avery Fisher Hall to accommodate a new donor, but didn’t make a change after the Fisher family threatened to sue. The need for money, however, did not diminish. The hall is now named David Geffen Hall, after he donated $100 million,[2] $15 million of which went to the Fisher family in appreciation for their connivance in the name change. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/arts/music/lincoln-center-to-rename-avery-fisher-hall.html?_r=0

Money talks. So does history. There is nothing inappropriate about honoring in perpetuity a person like George Washington, who was our first president and the General of the Army that won the American Revolutionary War. At the same time, there is no reason to honor in perpetuity a person who might already be little remembered. I’m thinking here of various state buildings in Ohio, named for James Rhodes, Vern Riffe, and Thomas Moyer. I do not question whether they are due some honor, only whether we should confer it forever. Worse yet, we sometimes name buildings for people who subsequently prove themselves unworthy of the honor. This happened at Ohio State, where a hotel is named for Roger Blackwell, who was jailed for insider trading infractions. (To be clear, The Blackwell was named in large part based on a sizable donation.)

Significant public buildings should be named for the institution they house, not an elected official who worked there (or somewhere else) temporarily. Among the four largest public buildings in downtown Columbus are the Vern Riffe State Office Tower, the Franklin County Court House, the Rhodes Office Tower, and the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. Only one of these buildings is appropriately named. Hint: it’s the one not named for a person. Public buildings should be named for their historical or current use, not for some elected official.

If political friends insist on naming a building after a politician, which they will, we should require the name to lapse. After ten years or twenty or fifty, the name should void and the proper authorities can rename it. Perhaps they will honor a different worthy person, perhaps they will reward the highest bidder. Perhaps in fifty years the people of Ohio will still consider Riffe or Rhodes or Moyer worth honoring with a named building. But I doubt it. By then there will be someone else worthy of the honor, not necessarily more worthy, but more immediate.

Let’s be fair, even now, when Ohio is full of people who knew them, it might be difficult to find someone who could tell you why any of these three men has a building named for him. Doing something extraordinary, like winning the Revolutionary War or writing the Declaration of Independence, is worthy of forever, being the longest-serving speaker in the history of the Ohio House of Representatives is worthy of something, but not forever. Wasn’t he just doing the job we elected him to do? Didn’t we pay him for his public service?

Obviously, I don’t think a person must have written the Declaration of Independence to have a building named after him or her. Cities and towns should appropriately honor their favorite sons and daughters. But significant public buildings, for instance the one housing the Supreme Court of Ohio, should never have a name attached. They stand on their own as the home of a grand institution.

Naming rights should be to honor a substantial donor or achievement. Significant public buildings should have their own name and should never be named after an individual. And all naming rights should have sunset provisions unless the name becomes part of the vernacular and a change would cause undue confusion.

[1] The $100 million that Lesley Wexner donated to Ohio State for the naming rights to its medical center is without a doubt a considerable sum. But it seems like a relative bargain given the exposure the name receives.

[2] For comparison purposes, Geffen’s donation was the same as Wexner’s. Geffen’s received naming rights to a hall within a center, not an entire medical center. The annual revenues of the Lincoln center are something around $125 million, about 4% of the Wexner Medical Center’s revenues. I’m using revenues as a proxy for exposure. Not that we rate such things, but this is a clear win for Wexner vis-à-vis Geffen. Alternatively, it is a clear win for the Lincoln Center vis-à-vis OSU.

No New Publicly Funded Roads

I recently read Green Metropolis by David Owen, which started a “what if” thought process. As in–what if we didn’t allow the construction of new public roads or the payment of tolls on roads and bridges roads. I can think of several potential positive developments.

First, roads and bridges are expensive to build and maintain. If we don’t build any more roads, all currently available highway funds can be used to ensure that we properly maintain or improve the roads and bridges that we have. Perhaps we could reverse the massive infrastructure deficit that currently exists.

Second, the gasoline tax funds currently available could be slightly increased to make up for the lost funds currently obtained through tolls. But the formerly lost time and fuel from waiting to pay tolls would be released to productive purposes by leaving it in the pockets of drivers. This would be a boon for business and for personal lifestyles.

Third, suburban sprawl would be somewhat contained. Sprawl hurts our country in various ways. The length of commutes increases and people are required to drive to obtain even basic necessities. This uses more gasoline than it should. The larger houses that are inevitably built consume more resources to build and more energy to maintain than smaller homes built nearer to the source of jobs.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, if our cities and towns can’t grow out, they must either compress or grow up. Either way would be more efficient. New York City is the most energy efficient city in the country. All that living space packed so tightly together helps adjacent units heat and cool each other. And the relative lack of personal transportation means that people use mass transportation, something most of us in the suburbs don’t have much access to.

Obviously this is a truncated discussion, primarily because I’m not a transportation or energy expert. But perhaps there is something to the concept. Perhaps if we all start thinking about ways to improve our country we can come up with ideas that lead to progress.