Today's SCOTS decisions

I wanted to start this post before the Supreme Court decision regarding the debt cancellation proposal, although I may not finish it before that decision comes down so read the next few paragraphs with that in mind.

Before discussing the affirmative action and religious worker rights cases, here is my take on the soon to be released student debt decision. 

First, it won't surprise me if the Supreme Court rejects Biden's student loan forgiveness program as an overreach of the executive branch. Since Congress is supposed to control the purse strings of our government, it is not unreasonable for the Court to conclude that this large amount of potential revenue should not be subject to a presidential executive order. 

To be honest, I agree with the idea that there has been a migration of power towards the executive branch for quite a while, although this is partly due to what I consider Congress' all too willingness to punt on controversial topics (immigration, for instance), and let the president take all the heat for such decisions that tend to be close to 50 - 50, meaning that whatever the president decides, 50% will love it, 50% will hate it. 

So, I am all for the judiciary branch fulfilling their constitutional duty as referee when there is over reach by any of the two other branches, executive or legislative. It is just a shame that some type of student loan forgiveness program wasn't approved by Congress so as to eliminate the need for today's decision.

That is the idea behind the SCOTUS decision earlier this week which rejected the independent legislative theory that was part of the fake elector plan concocted by Trump, Guiliani and Eastman in which some state legislators created "alternate" electors for the 2020 election which did not reflect the actual votes of the states electorate. While is seemed obvious that it was unconstitutional that state legislatures which did not like the voters' choice could just override  that choice, it is gratifying to know that a 2 to 1 majority conservative SCOTUS thought so too. Now, state Supreme Court will have tacit authority to overrule such legislative overreaches.  

Even more hopeful, this decision also means that when a state Supreme Court rules that electoral maps devised by one party which clearly negate the voters of the other, especially due to racial bias, the legislatures must abide by those rulings and redraw the maps. So, for instance, in Alabama where about 33% of the voters are minority, yet 5 of the 6 house districts (83%) are drawn to favor the voting interests of white people, that map must be redrawn. 

However, I do believe that there is a 25% chance that the Court finds in favor of Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, because those suing the Biden Administration may lack standing to do so. Remember, to sue an entity or person, one must demonstrate that you are being negatively effected by that person or company, perhaps via libelous words, unlawful job termination, unfair labor practices, unfair business practices, etc. 

In this case, the justices did seem to question why certain states were plaintiffs in the case (all with republican attorney generals) but not all states, red or blue, since all states have students who are effected by this proposal. How exactly does a state lose money when its residents now have more money to spend on the products and services that its businesses produce, which in turn, provide tax money (to the state) while also reducing the need for businesses to lay off workers which would result in added expenses for the state (unemployment costs, as well as, perhaps, welfare and health assistance expenses)?

There are also two individuals on this suit who are claiming hardship because they do not qualify for the full $20,000 benefit. Now, to me, if we are able to sue the government for not giving everyone the exact same benefit, wouldn't that mean that tax credits for having kids should be contested by childless couples, and mortgage interest deductions should be challenged by those who rent? 

Yes, those benefits first went through Congress and are part of the IRS codes, so this point may be less persuasive, but it sounds like sour grapes more than anything. 

I also read that the company SOFI is also involved. In their case, student loan forgiveness does in fact, negatively effect their business as they actively refinance student loan debt (making a large some of money in the process), so this reduces their potential pool of customers. But it is also true that when they determine eligibility for consolidating student loan debt, credit worthiness is part of the calculation. In other words, people who they deem less credit worthy, are declined loans. Analysis of the debt forgiveness program, has demonstrated that upwards of 75% of people who will benefit have earnings below $75,000 per year, which means that one might speculate that at least half of those who will get forgiveness might not qualify for a SOFI loan. Remember, SOFI has grown dramatically in the recent past, which means they have picked a lot of the low hanging fruit, those who could qualify for better rate.

My wife and I took Parent Plus student loans for our children in the 90's, at 7.9% so as not to burden our kids with too much student debt when they were first starting out. We were able to refinance those loans and have subsequently paid them off, so are not eligible for forgiveness, and wouldn't have been even if we still had that debt as we turned to the private sector for consolidation, at a lower interest rate. Why are not all the other banks that offer student loan consolidation also suing? 

I have no sympathy for SOFI, although, at least they might have some standing.

Will the Court consider any of these issues or stick with the simple view that a president does not have authority to forgive student loan debt without specific Congressional authorization?

IRS codes and government policies enhances our economy, hence our business community in myriad ways. Should wind turbine companies sue when solar panel credits are more than those for their product? I know there is a lot of complaining that emanates from the business community about certain government subsidies, but it all seems like sour grapes when one considers just how much corporate and business welfare there is embedded in our tax codes. 

It seems like we would all be better off, if we could acknowledge that sometimes a benefit will help us, sometimes our neighbor, sometimes people we don't agree with, but suing simply because they got more than you, this time, seems petty, if not downright childish.

That last part is dedicated to all the "working class" people who seem upset that young people are getting a helping hand (although some research indicates there are boomers who took on their kids debt that will benefit also). As if those of us born in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't have all kinds of advantages provided us by our parents and Uncle Sam. 

It all hearkens back to my 90% boat theory, which states that anytime something is advantageous for those of us in the 90% boat (in terms of income), we should always support programs that benefit any portion of the populace in our boat, even if not us this particular time, because we all know those in the 10% boat are getting more than their share. As I have stated in past posts, so often it is members of that 10% boat that create the wedge issues that keep the 90% of us from acting in concert.

Which brings us to today's SCOTUS decision on affirmative action. While I am not appalled by it, I do think it reflects poorly on the perspective of today's conservative thinkers who believe that there is not a place, especially in our education system, for policies that consider race as a contributor to selection. I am not just talking about minorities, as it seems that college attendance among men, of all races, is declining. It is not inconceivable that in a decade or two, we may need enrollment policies that help men attend college; will that alter perception on what is meant by affirmative action? 

As for the religious worker decision, this was the case of a USPS worker who did not want to work on Sundays and did not, until the post office contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on the weekends. At first, his managers worked with him, finding other people to take his turn, but as time went, this process became more difficult, and his record began to be marked with absences. He felt like he could get fired at any time, so he quit.

Applying my 90% boat theory to this topic, puts me on the side of the Court in their conclusion that the post office did not provide a reasonable accommodation. I know that my employer decided to open its doors om Sundays 14 years after I was hired, but they provided incentives for people to work on Sunday, and allowed those hired full time before the change to opt out. Over time, the issue resolved itself as those who were grandfathered retired or left the organization. I don't know the details of the post offices's situation, but one would think that by utilizing overtime and part time workers, and by stipulating that newly hired workers must agree to Sunday work, they could have resolved this issue without SCOTUS involvement. 

I have written about Supreme Court decisions, potential and actual, in the past. Here are a few:

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-rules-on-health-care.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-supreme-court-considers-gay-marriage.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/justice-roberts-courts-decisions.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/supreme-court-rulings.html

The Birth Lottery and Native Americans

Just a note before I begin. I have been seeing hundreds of hits per day to my blog from Singapore for about 2 weeks, although that interest has begun to wain since yesterday. Overall, there have been over 4000 hits this month with the vast majority from Singapore. I would be interested in any comments from my new readers, and perhaps even how and why this interest has occurred.

In 2010 when I first started this blog, one of my first posts concerned my thoughts on the randomness of life, when, where, to whom we are  born, and the fact that not enough thought is given to the idea that whether we have won or lost the birth lottery greatly effects the path of our lives. Here is a link to that post. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/04/birth-lottery.html 

At the time, and for the first few years after I posted it, if you googled birth lottery, my post was displayed on the first page of results which translated to a slew of hits. Now, as more and more people have presented their take on this concept, it is more difficult to find my post without accessing it directly through the blog. 

In 2013, I created a second post on this topic, link below. It received a lot less hits than the first, but after reading both I like the second one a bit more, especially the last paragraph. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-birth-lottery-revisited.html

Yesterday I read an article in the May edition of The National Geographic concerning the forced removal of Indigenous children from their homes. Of course, I was aware of this atrocity, the concept that taking these children from their homes, their culture, was not only acceptable, but necessary to make them less barbaric, more christian, more westernized, etc, but I guess it never dawned on me that this practice continued into the 20th century.

I guess I thought it was a prejudice from the 19th century, never having pursued, or never being taught in detail, just how long this horrific practice existed.

What struck me is that many of the children, now adults, who were featured in the article were born in the late 50's and 60's, the same time frame as me and a few of my siblings.

In other words, if I had lost the birth lottery and been born on an American Indian reservation, I would have been deemed in need of civilizing. I would have been forcibly removed from my home, forbidden to speak my native tongue, dressed in strange clothes, and denied knowledge of my culture. As would at least a few of my brothers.

Conversely, those children profiled in those pages would have experienced a much happier childhood, loved within their birth family structure, not requiring indoctrination, not subjected to the abuse and loneliness that this forced removal created had they been born in the circumstances that I was.

All due to the vagaries of the birth lottery.

According to the article, "there were about 500 federally funded boarding schools for Native children opened in the US and Canada beginning in the 1800's. Most focused on religious conversion, often through forced labor and brutal punishment." Yea, nothing inspires religious conversion like slave labor and beatings.  

And sometimes, these children were sent thousands of miles from their homes. It is well known that Jim Thorpe's incredible athletic talents became known due to his attendance at the Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania. Usually when people discuss this fact, they fail to mention that he was born in Oklahoma, a member of the Sac and Fox Indian Tribe, which means he was sent about 1300 miles from his family for this forced schooling. 

While Thorpe may have lost the birth lottery in terms of his ethnicity, he won in terms of athletic ability, some calling him the greatest athlete of his time, possibly of the 20th century. Sadly, there are not many other stories of forced removal and schooling of Indigenous children that have any such positive results. And, even Thorpe, who won Olympic gold medals, was a successful professional baseball and football player, and has one of the major awards of pro football named for him, has been ill treated in death due to his heritage.

Is it possible to overcome the obstacles that losing the birth lottery can present? That is, in fact, the source of so many inspiring stories of human accomplishment, not just your rags to riches type stories, but those who succeed despite physical and mental handicaps, missing parents, or worse, abusive upbringings.

Birth lottery discussions, and the recognition that winning or losing the birth lottery is a significant factor in the ultimate success or happiness of an individual, does not eliminate the need to do one's best, to make the most of whatever advantages the birth lottery has presented, to strive with every fiber in your body to overcome whatever disadvantages which resulted from losing the birth lottery.

But failing to recognize the advantages gained by simply being born to loving parents, in a prosperous country, with good health and/or above average intelligence, seems a bit arrogant, at best, an insult to the creator, at worst, for denying that so much of what you have is the result of random luck, or due to a favorable cosmic dart throw.

Wouldn't it be interesting if on judgement day we were judged by what we did with what we received at birth? Or what we did to help those who were blessed with less at birth? Or simply whether we were humble in acknowledging our accomplishments and magnanimous towards those who sometimes fell short of achieving theirs?

 

Everyday Workers and Walter Mitty

Just about ten years ago, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was released, starring Ben Stiller in the lead role, Kristin Wiig, Sean Penn and the great Shirley MacLaine. I can't remember when I first watched it, but just watched it again last week.

If you have never seen the film, and plan on doing so, it may be best not to continue reading as the main point of this post is the meaning, to me, of the last scene.

As a quick summary, Walter is a negative asset manager at Life Magazine. As an asset manager, Walter handles the negatives sent in by the Sean Penn character, Sean O'Connell, a world renowned photo-journalist who still sends in actual rolls of film to Walter for him to process. Old school. 

The antagonist of the movie is that the last issue of Life Magazine is set to be published in the coming week, and Sean has sent in what he has described as the quintessential picture which he would like to be on the last cover. Unfortunately, the negative seems to be missing from the roll that Sean sent, which sends Walter on an outrageous adventure to track down Sean to find out where the negative might have gone.

Originally, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was a short story published by James Thurber in 1939, in which Thurber describes, and revolves the life of Walter Mitty, around his daydreams. Some interpret the story as a way of demonstrating how the ordinary can be extraordinary, how the everyday life of even the most meek person, can become exciting, dangerous, meaningful when imagination is added.

Stiller takes this concept and creates a much more visual version, sending Walter in search of Sean to Greenland, Iceland and "ungoverned" Afghanistan during which he jumps into the Arctic and fights off a shark with a suitcase, and barely escapes a volcanic eruption, among other instances of adventure.

In essence, Walter lives, for a few days, experiences that he has only imagined before, when he would "zone out" as his mother and sister call it. In fact, right after the shark incident he palms the face of one of the sailors who rescues him, just to make sure what has just occurred was real. That is the extent of his past life's exploits, that he doubts, for a second, the reality of the episode.

In the end, Walter finds Sean on a mountaintop in Afghanistan, where he finds out that the missing negative was inserted into the slot in the wallet that Sean had gifted him, and which Walter had thrown out after being frustrated by getting fired from work due to the missing negative.

Fortunately, in a scene after this revelation, Edna Mitty, Walter's mom played by Shirley MacLaine, offhandedly suggests for Walter to put something in his wallet, to which Walter responds that he doesn't have anymore, which leads to Edna handing the gifted wallet to Walter, in the most casual of ways, because (and I am paraphrasing here) "I always keep your nick-nacks."

And so, Walter, despite already having been fired, returns to the transition team at Life and hands them the negative, thereby completing his last task at Life, the magazine's interests and the loyalty to Sean's photographic work, having been placed ahead of his own.

Pretty relevant, when we consider how phrases like make America great again mistake selfishness for patriotism. 

But ultimately, and perhaps a bit unrealistic if I am to be honest, is the scene when asked, what was it, by a fellow recently terminated co-worker, a unicorn, Sasquatch, Walter causally answers that he never looked. And, when I think about it, this loyalty was not just for Sean's work, not just for the concept of what Life Magazine meant to Walter, and all those faceless and innumerable employees who made Life the  iconic magazine it was, but also loyalty to what being a negative asset manager meant to Walter, and the understanding that being the best negative asset manager he could be was his contribution to Life's success, his way of making his own much less interesting life (to him), meaningful.

I warned you earlier that if you planned to see the movie, you might want to not read this post. If you are reading it anyway, you still might enjoy the movie despite what you have learned so far, but I recommend you stop reading here as I am about to reveal what that last cover picture depicted, and why it is important.

For those still reading, who have seen and recollect the film, you know that the final cover of Life Magazine was an homage to all the everyday employees who made Life successful over the years, and enshrined Walter Mitty as one of those unsung workers, presenting him, unaware that he was being photographed, deep in thought while examining one of the thousands of negatives he had processed over the years.

I had a conversation with an acquaintance at my niece's graduation party this past weekend, during which I repeated my oft stated belief that paying a livable wage to everyone who works, is being disabused as one of the causes of inflation. 

I asked him why someone who gets up at 4:00 AM to go to work, perhaps working outside in the heat of summer or in the freezing temps of winter, regardless of the task, or who takes care of our children at day care centers, or works in the hot and steamy kitchens of our restaurants, why they shouldn't receive a livable wage? Especially in light of the tens of millions dollars a year that certain other people in America earn. And, to boot, why so many of those very same people don't have health care insurance, perhaps because their particular employment is in retail, or fast food, or day care, or maybe because their employer only offers health care coverage to 40 hour employees and, just coincidentally,  they can only get 32 or 35 hours a week? And yet, despite the fact that most of us would agree that, yes, everyone should receive a livable wage, we also believe with little evidence, that giving everyday people higher wages creates inflation so we shouldn't do it? 

Of course, there was no answer, my friend knew that too many everyday workers were treated poorly, but too easily assumed that those people just couldn't, or didn't want to pursue a job in which they were valued more. And that hey, inflation sucks so if higher wages (to the lower and middle class workers) creates inflation, then let's not do it, even though, somehow, the rich are getting richer, and that more income is flowing to their coffers, yet no one seems upset at their ever increasing salaries.

Which meant that, like most people, he was missing the point.

In the Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Sean, the photographer, took the time to point out that it was the everyday workers at Life who made the magazine what is was, but in the end, Sean would get other assignments, another job, due to his specialty and his proficiency in performing that job while so many of those he honored in his quintessential picture might not, not because they weren't just as good at their job as he was at his, but because we fail to properly value the people who keep everything working.

We allow the masters to set the terms, all the while calling those masters good businessmen, as we accept their definition and valuation of our contributions.

My goodness, we even accept that on the one day a year when we are supposed to celebrate the everyday laborers of our society, millions of us still have to work!

I don't expect the workers of the world to unite any time soon. When it has worked, when workers in some industries fought for unions, for better wages, for the 8 hour work day, for paid sick and vacation time, for health benefits, for safer working conditions, and compensation when on the job injuries occurred, there was mass push back from the owners and masters. And, eventually, laws passed that allowed workers to opt out of union dues even when they were receiving benefits from union negotiations, and other legal rules that the masters employed to negate the strength of unions and the everyday workers who benefit from collective bargaining.

Perhaps the real secret of Walter Mitty is no secret at all. That the men and women who make America great, the Walter Mittys that work and live and die in our country, those that make all the goods, provide all the services, then turn around and make use of those goods and services thereby keeping the economy vibrant, are the very people that the masters prefer stay in the shadows, stay unknown, labor in silence, accepting the scraps that they deign to allow to trickle down.

Debt Ceiling Crisis Averted?

So, the House passed the debt ceiling package overwhelmingly, 314-117. And, it was bipartisan. Now, I know everyone knows I am a liberal and that I vote Democratic the vast majority of the time, so this might sound biased, but the deal which McCarthy demanded was passed due to Democratic legislators. Without them, it would have failed, and the GOP threat to allow the country to begin rationing its payments would be reality. 

In other words, despite the GOP speaker of the House agreeing to this deal, he couldn't get enough of his party colleagues to sign on, so it was Democrats who were the adults in the room, who acknowledged that everyone or no one won this latest act of political theater, and saved the day. 

Just to detail the numbers and remember, a bill needs 218 to pass;

 GOP about 150 for, about 70 against 

 Dems about 165 for, 46 against.

Yes Virginia, more Dems voted for the GOP hostage bill then GOP representatives. Now, one could explain that by saying that since Biden is a President of the Democratic persuasion, House Dems believed that he would get the blame should a default occur, so they swallowed their objections to save his presidency. I am sure that had some sway in some votes, despite the fact that the debt ceiling needed to be raised to pay for expenses already approved by Congress, so it is more a situation where the GOP thought they could blackmail Biden into giving in on some spending details knowing that he would make sure a deal was struck. In the end, those in the GOP caucus who have no qualms about forcing a debt default, truly don't understand that in a democracy you never get everything you want because just as many voters gave a mandate to the public servants on the other side of the aisle to represent their interests.

I guess what I am saying is that the GOP is currently the minority ruling party in America, but at least 70 of them think otherwise. That is the kind of if-I-don't-get-my-way-I-will-take-my-ball-home thinking that one usually experiences as a child on a sandlot field, not in the halls of Congress. 

All that being said, the good news is that moderates of both parties exhibited an understanding as to how democracy works in a partisan environment. It reminds me of those diving meets where the high and low scores are thrown out, and only those scores in the middle are counted. Perhaps this vote, for the first time in a while, demonstrated that while the crazies on both sides of any debate are allowed to voice their opinions, and even vote their beliefs, it is the majority of those in the middle who should be making the bulk of the laws. 

Of course, even this agreement, with its temporary spending caps, will do little to reduce our overall national deficit. At best, it slows the accumulation of debt a small fraction. At worse, it allows everyone to go to their various constituents and proclaim victory, when in reality, all Americans have lost again.

Well, not all Americans.

The super rich remain unscathed in this battle. Sure, some poor people on the SNAP program might have to work a bit more, and our young people will have to start making student loan payments, but the revenue side of this debate, was completely ignored, and from that standpoint, McCarthy and the GOP won by never permitting higher taxes to be part of the budget deficit solution.

The following link is to the post I wrote last week on this topic, and includes some data about who was in charge during the recent run up of our national debt, as well as links to my posts around the last big debt ceiling crisis during Obama's first term.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/05/another-debt-ceiling-crisis.html

Clearly, that crisis had little effect in the growth of our national deficit, since the debt has grown by over 50% since. To put numbers to it, national debt is about $31 trillion dollars now, was under $12 trillion in 2008, under $6 trillion in 2001. 

So, if you want to demonstrate the definition of a perfect storm, the details of why our cumulative debt went from about $6 trillion to $31 trillion in 22 years, which is over a trillion dollars per year average while it took us to run up $6 trillion in debt sine 1789 (211 years, and that included huge deficit spending for World War 1 and 2), look no further than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2008 economic meltdown, the huge tax cuts for the rich in 2018, and the disjointed response to the pandemic. 

More spending to rescue business and individuals from the 2008 meltdown and the effects of the lock down, less revenue by reducing taxes for corporations and the rich. 

So again, as I said in my previous post, both sides are to blame, and since both sides represent portions of the American electorate, we are to blame for our difficult, national fiscal situation. 

But our blame is more due to a lack of research and critical thinking than anything, because we continue to believe the propaganda of the rich who create wedge issues which diverts our attention from the real reasons why buying power for the middle class has stagnated.

Just look at all the hubbub surrounding Bud Light, and now Target department stores for believing that trans people should be able to drink beer and buy clothes. Really? Do everyday Americans really believe that we should have separate but equal beverages and department stores, or are they being aroused by the powers to be (can you say Fox News) to divert our attention from the real problems in America, namely that we are moving towards either a theocracy or autocracy every time we use our bible to blame society's ills on a minority group, or claim freedom means not knowing our own history.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-90-boat.html

Folks, the old adage story about when a frog is placed in boiling water, it jumps out, but put it in tepid water and slowly turn up the hear and it will boil to death is exactly how our democracy will fail. 

Every time you agree with someone who tells you seeing a piece of clothing in a store, or reading a book, or understanding how some people have 2 dads or 2 moms, will make your child one of the "others", you are turning up the heat in our collective water bowl just a little more.  

I have stated before that xenophobia may have been a necessary bias for early man, when those who were "others" weren't just avoided or tolerated, they were actively killed. It seems hardwired into our nature. But, not everyone suffers from its consequences, and it is possible to learn to ignore that first instinct, and to embrace the diversity of humanity.

Sometimes it is a simple as having a beloved family member "come out", or having a daughter or son bring home a minority for their date. But if you have not had an experience like that, it isn't all that hard to seek out a parent of a trans child, or a trans young adult and talk to them about their experience. Then, rather than reacting emotionally to a news story that presents an LGBTQ+ person in a negative light, you will be able to reference your conversation with someone who identifies in that way, and realize how distorted is that particular news story, and how all of us, regardless of our sexual identity or preference, are just trying to be happy in a tank of hot water. 

And then we might wonder why these kinds of culture wars are so well funded, and where that funding is emanating from. Only then can the 90% of us keep the heat down in our community waters.

The following story, written earlier this year, is about empathy. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hole.html