Scott Porad

Upon complaining about the online activism of SOPA opponets, one Congressional aide remarked:

Why can’t they just hire a lobbyist like everyone else?

Well, maybe because we don’t have the money that the major media corporations do!

If this doesn’t explain how corrrupt our government has become, then nothing will.

Cheezburger recently turned 5 years old!  Hooray for us!  Who would have ever thought that a silly web site about cats could transform into the leading destination for online humor?!

Sadly, after 5 years, Cheezburger, and the entire Internet, are facing the most serious thread of censorship that has ever existed in the United States: SOPA.

In protest, Cheezburger will protest SOPA legislation with a “blackout” on January 18th.  From Geekwire:

All Cheezburger sites will also be instituting a blackout on January 18th to protest SOPA and PIPA. Now, go ask Wikipedia to do it,” Huh said in a Tweet on Thursday. Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales said he’s considering taking the popular online encyclopedia offline in protest of the legislation, a black-out being led by Reddit which noted in a blog post this week that “there are powerful forces trying to censor the Internet.

SOPA would enable the government to shut down websites based on the simple accusation of a copyright violation.  No due process.  No day in court.  Just a claim and…poof…you’re done!

…Goodbye Cheezburger
…Goodbye Google
…Goodbye Facebook
…Goodbye Internet

Of course, those sites won’t really shut down.  What will really happen is simple thuggery: major corporations with deep pockets will threaten a company like Facebook with a SOPA claim, but…through the graciousness of their good hearts…agree to withhold their claims for a modest fee.

I believe the mafia calls that “protection money”.

Just another step on the path to the Banana States of America.

Have you contacted your Senator?  If not, do it now…here’s a list of phone numbers.

The span of history is a never-ending conflict between the haves and the have-nots:

…the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on “how to suppress” Occupy protests…when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence.

This article from which this quote comes is worth the read…it presents the Occupy Movement in rather clarifying terms.

From Occupy Protesters and the Police Clash in Lower Manhattan: Bloomberg backs the police in Occupy violence.

I thought Bloomberg was The Great Independent. The Benevelont Billionaire.

Are his true colors starting to show? Is he really just an ordinary oligharch…using the police and state to protect his interests?

Time will tell. He has two, or three a most, more moves to play before we know who’s side he’s on.

Elizabeth Warren, candidate for Senate in Massachusetts:

I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Amen.

Yesterday, in an e-mail exchange with a co-worker, I wrote:

I don’t have any anti-[insert his project] bias.  I have an anti-doing-things-that-are-illogical bias.

Which leads me to the topic of today’s blog post: Cannabis Prohibition.

Simply put, there is not one logical reason why cannabis (a.k.a. marijuana) should be illegal in our country.  Don’t take it from me: spend a few minutes today researching cannabis prohibition and learn for yourself.  (Here’s one well researched fact sheet if you don’t want to spend the time.)

Hunger is simply a terrible thing.  I can honestly say there has never been a single day in my life that I have had to worry about food.  Have you ever had to worry about food?  About where your next meal was going to come from?  I’m going to guess that 99.9% of the people reading this have not.

Hearing stories of hunger breaks my heart.  And, child hunger is even more heartbreaking.  Depending on exactly what reports you read, roughly 15 million…15 MILLION CHILDREN…live hungry, in homes where food is scarce.

Maybe it’s not exactly 15 million.  Maybe it’s only 10 million, or maybe it’s 20 million.  Does it matter?  The fact that it’s a non-zero number is a problem in my view.

This morning, I read this news report on food banks:

Across the Northwest food banks are seeing more customers than ever…The numbers speak for themselves. In Washington, food banks saw a 16 percent increase in hungry families…Oregon saw a 20 percent increase…Idaho food banks served 31 percent more this year than last…Food bank workers like Peny Archer of Moses Lake, Washington, says it’s hard to keep up with the demand. She says the long grind of this down economy has worn out many families who were able to make-do before.

Which makes sense: as these economic times drone on, people who aren’t working are running out of their savings.  To illustrate this, there are two things worth looking at.  I’ve provided some charts below to illustrate.

First, how many people are unemployed?  The answer is: a lot.  Roughly 1 out of 10 people are unemployed.  This doesn’t even count the people who are underemployed—that is, people working part time who want to work full-time.  That stands at almost 2 in 10 people—about 18%.

But, the real issue with hunger is not being out of work.  The issue that drives hunger is being out of money.

A lot of people have a little money saved, get a little unemployment insurance from the government, and can cut costs.  But, that only lasts for so long.  Eventually, the well runs dry.

Think about that for a moment: if you were unemployed tomorrow, how long would you be able to live before you ran out of money?  Assume that unemployment insurance will pay you only 25% of what you make currently, and beyond that you have to cut costs and live off of savings.  And, remember, that unemployment insurance only lasts for 6 months.

Could you go a month?  Two months?  Six months?  A year?

The fact is, the well has been running dry for more people than ever.  Below are two charts showing data since the 1960′s.  The first shows the number of people who have been out of work for more than 6 months.  The second, shows the average amount (or median, actually) amount of time that a worker is unemployed.

As you can see more people are unemployed for a longer time than ever.  Almost 5% of workers, roughly 7 million people, have been unemployed for more than six months.  And, the average time for being unemployed is also 6 months.

But, what really makes this stand out is the fact that both of these rates are double what they’ve been in the last 40 years.  Double!

So, I’m going to end on a gloomy note: a long as people remain unemployed their situation will get worse.  First, they will spend their money, then they will rely on charitable services and liquidate assets and so-on-and-so-forth.  Naturally, as each of these things happens, they spend less and less money.

Keep in mind that 10% of the US workforce is millions and millions of people and families.  So, as those people start spending less money, then businesses make less.  The result, of course, is that those businesses don’t do as well, and have to lay people off.  (And, governments have less money because taxes are lower, so they have less assistance to offer.)  And, so the vicious cycle begins anew with yet more unemployed people.

The point?  Our economy is going to get worse and we are going to see more and more of these stories about food banks and hunger until we come together as a community and society and do something to spur employment.  The choices we have before us are poor…we’ll be choosing the lesser of evils…but, those options are better than the dismal future we currently face.

Greetings, Americans!  Welcome to my First Ever Filling Out My Voting Ballot Running Diary.

When I was a kid, I remember my parents telling me how who or what you voted for was a secret.  That when you went into the ballot booth you got to vote your conscience and you didn’t have to tell anybody.  That the privacy of your vote was what made America great.

Well, you know what, F-that…I want to tell you how I’m voting.

So, I have my No. 2 pencil sharpened up, and am ready to Rock The Vote!  Enjoy!  (P.S.  I live in Washington State.)

• We’re starting off with a softball.  I’m voting a big fat no on Initiative 1053, Tim Eyman’s initiative that would require 2/3rds vote of the legislature for tax increases.  Uh, bad idea.  Have you seen California?
• Initiative 1082 would privatize workers compensation insurance.  Who do you trust more: an insurance company or the government?  Easy: no.
• A-ha!  The first curveball of the night.  Should Washington State introduce an income tax on high-income earners.  This is a tricky one for me.  The liberal progressive side of me wants to vote for it, but the self-interested side of me realizes that when you work in technology startups they’re typically funded by angel investors who have high-incomes.  The tipping point: I don’t trust the legislature to not to lower the threshold from high-income to medium-income…and then from medium- to low-income.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, it never goes back, so I vote no.

Oooh…I just saw that I’m supposed to use a pen instead of a pencil.  Not having my votes count would suck, so I’m switching to a Sharpie.

• Another curveball: the two initiatives that would allow liquor sales at private stores.  (Background for my non-Washingtonians: in Washington State liquor can only be bought at state-operated stores.)  Now, the logical side of me see absolutely no reason why the government should be running food and beverage stores.  The argument most opponents make is that this will make it easier for kids to get alcohol.  Since I think the drinking age should be lowered to zero (and that most, if not all drugs should be legal), then I don’t really care about that.  Plus, does it seem like kids have a hard time getting alcohol?  The argument that sways me is this: this entire thing was spawned and funded by big businesses that stand to make big profits as a result.  These days, I’m thinking the less economic power we consolidate in the hands of a few, then the better off we are.  Verdict: no.
• Okay, hypocrisy time: Initiative 1107 would repeal the tax on sugared drinks and candy.  Sugar is poison and we’re suffering from an obesity epidemic.  Let’s keep the tax: I vote no.
• Ugh!  Why do we elect legislators if they’re going to “refer” the tough questions back to us, for example Referendum 52: a bond measure to raise money to upgrade schools.  Bottom line: the single most important factor for a healthy economy is a well-educated populous,so I’m going to vote for schools: yes!
• I’m starting to get tired.  More referenda in the form of amendments to the state constitution.  What do I know?  Isn’t this why we elect legislators?
• Ah, we’re done with the state…now on to the county.  In the voters pamphlet, nobody has opposed the first two items which are…yes, like referenda! Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said something like, “when everybody is agreement, be afraid”?  Whatever.  Yawn.
• Here’s a puzzler: should we raise the sales tax for more police and fire services?  On the one hand, shouldn’t government have to make do like the rest of us?  On the other, I would like to have essential services.  I don’t know.  Again, it seems like these are the decisions we elect people to make.  I’m leaving it blank for now.

Whew!  We’re at the half way mark, and I’m going to get a drink of water before moving on to the actual political races!  Hooray!

Okie doke…back to the good stuff…here we go!

• US Senator.  Easy as pie: Patty Murray, Democrat.  In fact, I’ll be voting for all Democrats this election.  Why?  Because after the last 10 years there is no way that any person who considers themselves serious and responsible can vote for the Republican Party in good conscience.  You might like their ideas…great, I’ll have an honest debate with you about ideas.  But, as a governing party…well, almost any attempt to compare their words to their actions is laughable.  The Republican Party, at present, is an embarrassment to our country; and insult to intelligent people everywhere.
• Okay, this one is fun…for real, not making this up: I have had 10 former direct bosses in my career.  That is, 10 people whom I reported to directly.  If Susan DelBene is elected to the US House of Representatives, then two of them will be currently serving in Congress.  Am I going to put that on my resume?  You betchya!  (Wink.)
• Democrat.
• Democrat.
• Democrat.
• Uncontested, so I wrote myself in for Prosecuting Attorney.  I wonder if you actually have to be a lawyer to have that job.  Hmmm…I just scratched my name out and penciled in my friend Alan who is an attorney at Microsoft.  He couldn’t be any worse than this guy, right?
• Judges: there are 13 judges running for office and 10 of them are uncontested.  Personally, I don’t believe we should be voting for judges.  What on Earth do I know about judges?  I am going to write in some more of my lawyer friends: Lew, Ronen, Kim, Jeff, Robin, Aaron and…I’m out of lawyer friends, I guess, so I’ll just leave these blank.

Well, friends…that was fun.  Clocking in at 1 hour and 22 minutes, my ballot is complete.  Until next time!

I was puzzled by something I read today in The New York Times about so-called “public option” in the proposed health care reform plan:

[Opponents] argue that a public plan would invariably drive private insurers out of business and prompt employers to drop private coverage, pushing people who are already insured onto a plan run by the government.

How would it drive private insurers out of business?  It would offer equal plans at a lower cost, that’s how.  I don’t see what’s wrong with that.  If we can get the same health care at a lower cost, isn’t that good?  Isn’t that one of the major objectives of reform…to reduce costs?

I suppose it could be argued that there would be job losses if private insurers closed, but wouldn’t the public system pick up a large portion of those jobs.  Plus, wouldn’t the dollars saved by consumers be spent elsewhere thereby creating jobs elsewhere?

What about the part where employers drop coverage thereby forcing their employees on to the private plans: what’s the problem with that?  Well, I suppose you could say that the public plan could be of lower quality than a private plan, so employees would suffer.

But, wouldn’t that present a competitive disadvantage to the employer who doesn’t offer a private plan?  In other words, a company would be at a disadvantage in attracting the best employees if they didn’t offer a competitive plan, private or public.

From my point of view, hiring the best people is the number one indicator of success, so I don’t see why a company would choose to offer benefits that don’t ensure they get the best of the best.  (What about companies that don’t need or want to hire the best?  Well, I doubt they offer gold-plated benefits presently, so it’s unlikely that a public plan will be lower quality.)

Seems to me that there is an irrational fear of a public plan.  Yet, the fact is that almost half the country already has a public plan–it’s called Medicare–so I don’t see why we shouldn’t open it up to everyone.

My friend Todd and I had a discussion about healthcare reform today.

My understanding of Todd’s point of view was he believes that a) the only way to achieve both comprehensive coverage and cost control is to ration care, b) the government (any government) is not capable of rationing healthcare effectively because it is inherently a personal, not public, decision, and c) that the market is the best way to deliver healthcare because allows individuals to make their own healthcare choices.

1. Tragedy of the Commons

Fundamentally, the issue with healthcare is a Tragedy of the Commons issue. In other words, all the actors in the system know that it needs reform, but none of them individually have an incentive to actually reform it. Like all Tragedy of the Commons issues, a regulatory entity with the rule of law (i.e. the government) is the only entity with the power to cause reform to occur.

While on the one hand I’m not thrilled about government bureaucrats creating regulations that ration care, I am willing to make that choice because I believe that is actually the only scenario where change can occur.

Likewise, the market cannot solve this problem because in a market individuals have no incentive for change. In a market, individuals act in their own best interests which is how a Tragedy of the Commons occurs in the first place.

2. FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

The core of the rationing argument is FUD–Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Arguments based on FUD fundamentally smell fishy to me, but this one particularly doesn’t make sense to me. “Do I want a government bureaucrat deciding if I get <insert medical care here>?” goes the argument.

No, I do not. However, a government bureaucrat doesn’t get to make that decision–I do. If my doctor and I think <insert medical care here> is necessary, then I can choose to go to the medical provider of my choice to have <insert medical care here>. As they say, it’s a free country.

The real issue is not whether I can get the care I want, but who will pay for it. Really, we’re not talking about health care–we’re talking about health insurance which is an important distinction to keep in mind.

3. Rationing and Capitalism

When we talk about government-run health care we’re really talking about government-run health insurance. In other words, the government is going to get into the business of issuing health insurance policies just like private companies do now. (In fact, the government is already in this business in a very big way: 46% of health care is currently paid for by government insurance policies known as Medicare and Medicaid.)

Let’s consider how this works: when you go to your doctor for medical services, he or she charges for that service. Someone has to pay, right?

Most people have a health insurance policy, just like auto, home or life insurance, that pays a benefit against claims allowed under the terms of the policy. Your car gets hit, the insurance company pays to get it fixed. Your leg gets broken, the insurance company pays to get it fixed. Same, same.

Of course, other people, the minority of people, simply pay for their medical services. They break their leg, and since they don’t have a policy, they just pay for it.

Notwithstanding the FUD, here’s what doesn’t make sense to me about the rationing argument: if the government policy doesn’t cover the medical services you want, then a) you are still free to pay cash, and b) given that we live in a capitalist society, there will be private companies that will sell policies you can buy instead if that’s what you prefer.

Actually, this isn’t really so different than how health care works today. Many private policies don’t provide certain benefits. For example, recently I needed a test that my policy didn’t cover. I still wanted the test, so I paid for it myself; it cost $99 + tax. In addition, with respect to the existing government run health insurance programs, many private companies sell policies that cover the benefits where Medicare and Medicaid do not.

In other words, the argument about rationing is a complete red herring. There is no government entity rationing services, nobody is will tell you what health care you can or cannot have. These decisions are completely, 100% up to you and your doctor. You will be able to get whatever health care you want to get. Period. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

It’s simply a matter of who is going to pay for it–you, your private insurance plan or a government insurance plan.

4. Status Quo is Not Really an Option

My final thought is not in response to Todd, but a thought in general: the status quo is not really an option.

Yes, as a country, we could choose to continue down the current path, but that path is an illogical choice. Rising costs are a drag on our economy. Increasingly people cannot afford to pay for care or insurance which is a drag on our economy and morality. Per capita, we pay more and get less than any other industrialized nation. Our path is simply not sustainable.

The bottom line is that when you do the math, maintaining the current course is a certain disaster. Choosing to do nothing is a choice we are free to make, but it is an irresponsible decision, and as a society we cannot afford the consequences of that choice, both figuratively and literally.