Responsibility

Call Me Irresponsible

Call me irresponsible    

Call me unreliable         

Throw in undependable too

Chief Justice Roberts is at risk of being irresponsible.

On Tuesday, the Senate will begin the second Impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  The Presiding Officer will be Senator Leahy, not Chief Justice Roberts.  The Constitution requires that the Presiding Officer for  a Presidential Impeachment trial is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The trial might be one  that Chief Justice Roberts finds disagreeable, but he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution   Does he have the options of declining to preside, or is he not accepting his responsibilities?

The President when the Article of Impeachment was voted was Donald Trump.  The President when the actions cited in the Article of Impeachment was Donald Trump.  While the mandatory sentence of a guilty verdict of impeachment is removal from office, and Donald Trump is NOT currently in office, it is not the only sentence.  The sentence can be disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.

This is not a case of sentence first, trial later.  Chief Justice Roberts must have the United States of America confused with Alice in Wonderland.  Given the actions that led to the Articles of Impeachment and the vote on the Articles of Impeachment, and the possible sentence, it is clear that this IS the impeachment trial of a President and  Chief Justice Roberts must preside.  To choose not to preside is irresponsible.

Impeachment II

The Times They Are A Changing

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call    

Don't stand in the doorway      

Don't block up the hall  

For he that gets hurt    

Will be he who has stalled       

The battle outside ragin'           

Will soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls    

For the times they are a-changin'

On Tuesday February 9th , the Senate must bear witness to the battle that was ragin’ on January 6th

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump will be an opportunity for the Senate to bear witness to the battle outside that was raging.  They will eventually be asked to determine whether  Donald Trump's actions incited that battle.  "Many fine people" have called that battle an insurrection.  Insurrections are an attempt to topple a government.  That the majority of the people of the United States voted that this was their government makes this an insurrection against the people.  The fact that the insurrection did no succeed does not make it any less an insurrection.

The outcome of the trial is not yet determined.  The Republican Senators have  indicated that the chances of rendering a guilty verdict are unlikely.   But that is not the most important part of the impeachment trial.  It will be an opportunity to use the Swahili word, Kushuhudia, to bear witness, which is an essential part of any healing process.  If we are to move past the battle that was raging, the Senators need to bear witness to the events of January 6^th.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Let’s us hope we learn and never repeat this battle, outside or inside..

Passing for a Higher Class

 

Free  

When I'm free to be whatever I want to be,
Think what wonders I'll accomplish then!
When the master that I serve is me and just me--
Can you see me being equal with my countrymen? 

I am not free until all of my countrymen ( gender neutral) are free 

This is me.

• I am a feminist,
• My paternal grandfather was an illegal immigrant  (okay from Canada, but illegal is illegal),
• My maternal grandparents were legal immigrants from Poland, but never spoke English,
• I was baptized a Roman Catholic,
• I have a brother with MS who serves on a disability commission,
• I have a brother who is openly gay,
• My father was a high school drop-out,
• My father was a union member,
• I am a senior citizen,
• I struggle with mental illness, etc.

and by all rights I should be assigned to a low class. However by changing the first letter of my last name from a “B” to an “R”, it becomes the same as a former Republican President.  I have degrees from two Ivy League Universities.  My history and beliefs are not obvious from my appearance.  I know that I have been mistaken for, passed as, a  WASP on many occasions and been treated as such. 

During the Capitol Riot, Rep. Phillips ( D- MN), suggested that his Democratic colleagues move to the other side of the aisle so that they could blend in, but he then realized that many of his colleagues of color could not blend in and he understood privilege and systemic racism.

Slavery did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation.  It was quickly replaced by Jim Crow laws.  We are not free until all of our countrymen are free.  I should not accept passing for a higher class. We should all earn our places in society, not accept one.

Impeachment

 We’re  A Couple of Misfits

Why am I such a misfit?
I am not just a nitwit!    

They can't fire me, I QUIT!
Seems I don't fit in.

Can you escape firing by quitting?  And what does that have to do with the impeachment trial?

The upcoming impeachment trial should not focus on the constitutionality of trying a president who is no longer in office.  Despite that the fact that removal from office is a mandatory sentence, it is not the only possible sentence ( Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 of the United States Constitution defines the penalties of a guilty verdict of impeachment as being not only removal from office but also “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”.  While Donald Trump may no longer be in an office from which he can be removed, he could be disqualified from holding any federal office in the future.  The defense that he is not in office seems to be a “You can’t fire me, I quit” defense.

While most of us will never be President, many of us will face the prospect of being fired.  While “You can’t fire me, I quit” may sound appealing, those who chose to quit before being fired are choosing this immediate personal gratification, and that may not be rational in the long term.  Those who are fired can receive unemployment insurance. Those who quit can not.  A search by future employers would probably discover the actions that led to “You can’t fire me, I quit”, so this is NOT hiding those actions.  While it might seem to be immediately gratifying, quitting to avoid being fired is never recommended. 

The impeachment trial may result in acquittal.  However it serves as the full disclosure of any alleged actions.  The defense should be I am not guilty of those actions, not “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Public Services

    Be Our Guest

Be our guest    

Be our guest    

Put our service to the test       

Tie your napkin 'round your neck, Cherie    

And we provide the rest.

If businesses are expected to provide service,     
is there a difference between a business and a public service?

Business can choose their customers, set their own prices, and reap their own profits.  They have control over what offerings they provide and what costs to provide those services they incur.  If they fail to be profitable, those businesses can declare bankruptcy .  By contrast a public service has customers that are determined for it, can not realize their own profits, have no control over their offerings or costs, and can NOT declare bankruptcy, It is a public services NOT a business.  Those public services can be expected to operate efficiently, but that does not mean that they are a business.

The US Postal Service is just that… a public service, a government function, not a business.  Acting as if it was a business is not reasonable.   Public schools, prisons, etc. might chose to use private contactors to provide some of their functions, but that does not make them business.  The public, acting through its representative government, is responsible not only for the benefits but may have to provide subsidies to realize those benefits.

The business of government is to provide services that are determined by the government, not to be a business itself.  If services  required no subsidies but were guaranteed to be profitable, then presumably businesses would have provided those services.  Public services are those that the public requires but businesses won't provide.

Innovation

Crown of Creation

Life is change.
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain.
My life is to survive and be alive
for you

Innovation requires changes.  But do we reward innovation?

I spent the first half of my career in public service, i.e. government, and the second half of my career in the private sector.  It is my experience that successful innovation was rewarded in the public sector only at the time of promotions or interviews for a new job.  If innovation failed, a government employee was likely to be  punished by being fired.  Under such a system the reasonable expected behavior is not to innovate, not to stick your neck out.

In the private sector, innovation can be rewarded at times other than promotions.  It can take the form of annual awards, performance bonuses, or other rewards.  If the goal of innovation is realistic, e.g. doesn’t violate real rules, then even failures can be, if not rewarded, then at least not punished.

This does not mean rewarding any effort.  A goal that is impossible, such as innovating by seeking a perpetual motion machine which would violate the laws of physics or an elixir that seeks to change lead into gold, is not a change that should be rewarded by anyone.  

If we expect change, then we have to reward efforts to change.

Winning

The Games People Play

Oh the games people play now
Every night and every day now 
Never meaning what they say now      
Never saying what they mean

People might not know they are playing games, but how they play can reveal a lot about them.

Game Theory is concerned about how people make decisions to win games.  The Ultimatum Game in behavioral economics is a very  simple game.  Player One is given an amount, say $100.  Player One must make an offer to a Player Two.  If Player Two accepts the offer, then they both get to keep their respective amounts.  If Player Two rejects that amount, then neither player gets to keep anything.

The User Optimal solution for a single non-repeating game is for Player One to offer as small an amount as possible.  Let’s assume that offer is $1.  Player Two, should accept that offer, because even $1 is better than nothing.

The System Optimal solution is for Player One to offer to split the money equally with Player Two, and for Player Two to accept that offer.  Then they both have $50.

It might sound like the User Optimal solution would be the one chosen.  However in practice those who were Player Two often rejected any offer that was less than $30.  Why?

Player One in the User Optimal solution assumed that the game would never be repeated, and by offering less than $30, both players walked away with nothing.  An offer of greater than $30 to Player Two would normally be accepted.  Player Two recognized that an offer of less than $30 indicated that Player One assumed that the game would never  to be repeated, and the roles would never be reversed.

The difference between the User Optimal offers and the minimum acceptable offer is what economists call the shadow price. This includes not only an acknowledgement that the game might be repeated and the roles reversed,  but also an indication of how Player One values the future.   I.e. what discount rate that Player One applies to future values. That $29 dollar difference is the future value of the $50 that would have been the System Optimal cost.  The fact that we value the future less than the present, i.e. apply a discount rate to future values, is reflected in the adage "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". 

So what discount rate does a shadow price of  $29 price imply?.  It implies a discount rate of 42%, if the game is repeated one time.  A $1 offer implies a 98% discount rate if the game is repeated once and the roles are reversed. Player Two won’t play with player One if those are the rules.