Violence, white supremacy and the American mindset

Another day, another shooting.

Random acts of violence seem to be occurring on a regular basis recently, and once again, the country asks itself what are people thinking in the wake of the murder of six Sikh church goers in Milwaukee, by  a white supremacist.

Well, these perpetrators are obviously not thinking very much, and if they are, they've somehow logically concluded that hate is a legitimate mindset and violence is a legitimate solution.

I always ask myself: "How did they get this way."

You can go through the list of usual suspects. Bad parents, bad neighborhoods, bad friends, bad education, society in general, genetics.

But it's worth considering given that most babies don't start out violent. Most kids don't start out violent. Somewhere along the way, something happened that helped reinforce the idea that violence worked as a coping mechanism.

And there's not much one can do about any of the above in any kind systematic way.

Small things can be done along the way. Kids can be taught tolerance at school. They can be taught to settle conflict without violence, without bullying.

But at some point, and this is the scary part, the volume of at-risk kids overwhelms the system. More fall through the cracks. They end up in groups like the white supremacists.

At the growth in at-risk kids to a society that seems to be less willing to deal with them year after year, only building more penitentiaries.

We won't stop crazy incidents like those in Milwaukee or Aurora, Colo., with any program. But we've got to have solutions in place that at least reduce the risk of more and more people falling through the cracks.

The odds will only get worse if we don't.

Would you like some ethanol with your meal?

I covered farming when crop prices were never above cost and always too low.

As years went on, ethanol, of course, was heralded as the savior for low corn prices. In the ensuring decade or so, it worked like a charm. Market prices for corn were solid, and the government subsidies went down.

Now, apparently, we think ethanol is the culprit for corn prices being too high. And we want the government to fix that too.

Where are we? 1984. George Orwell would be proud of how good has become bad and bad has become good. Unispeak reins.

Livestock groups have corralled some lawmakers into asking the EPA to grant an exception to the ethanol mandate in fuel, meaning less ethanol would be made and less corn used, thereby lowering the prices for livestock producers who buy corn for feed.

Some say high corn prices are killing the livestock industry and companies that make and sell meat.

Of course, the corn industry and ethanol promotion groups argue the waiver should not be granted and the market should be allowed to work.

The first government policy on ethanol worked. It became an industry that consumed millions of bushels of corn, now almost 40 percent of U.S. domestic production.

Why is this a problem?

The proposed new government policy aims to turn back the one that actually worked.

The livestock industry should like, uh, buck up, and pay higher prices or reduce their consumption, kind of like the rest of us have to do when prices get high.

It's called the free market system.

Views on news: tax breaks and jobs

For years now it seems, the left and the right have diametrically opposed views on if tax cuts to the wealthy or business help create jobs.

It's an argument about 32 years old, and one on which Ronald Reagan was elected. Of course, Reagan endorsed the idea of tax cuts to create jobs and won over Jimmy Carter with the country hoping he was right. His Republican primary opponent, George H.W. Bush famously called it voodoo economics.

The debate tends to evolve into a social argument versus an economic one. The social one, of course, gets much more media play because it's simple to understand and easy to sell with buzz phrases, like tax the rich, class warfare, the 99 percent talk as well as job killing talk.

My old master program economic professors would be amused at the ability of politicians to abscond with reason and replace it with vitriol.

Even today, there's a little bit of pseudo economics running around. The left or even center left tends to point to the record of how we cut taxes with the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and we actually lost jobs the next five or six years in the aggregate, across the country.

While that looks like the tax cuts didn't work, it may be only partially true. It's true that employment went down, but that doesn't mean SOME employers didn't hire because they got a tax cut.

The real point here is that if we pronounced our policy will create jobs, we should expect people will measure that across the board, throughout the country. But even my most liberal professors would admit that there are many factors that influence job creation including wages, demand for products, imports, exports, the interest rate and the value of the dollar.

Unforunately as we've come to learn, bizarre, unregulated things like credit default swaps also influence job creation.

And anecdotally, we can find stories that prove both points. I know a high-earning hedge fund manager who pays the low 15 percent rate on the vast majority of their capital gain income. This person told me if they got a tax break, they would not likely buy a new car (they already have one) a new house (already got a nice one of those) or really would expend too much more income, except may go out for dinner a little more.

Of course, they would have more money to invest, which shouldn't be discounted, but it doesn't give the same bang for the buck as consumer spending, which makes up 70 percent of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, I know a small business person who said if they got a $3000 tax break on their property tax bill, they probably would hire a new employee.

Both have circumstances that direct their decision. And we should know that if we think a general policy will affect everyone the same, we are simply kidding ourselves.

The key, (if you've hung with me this long, congratulations for caring about this stuff , and you're among the top 10 percent at least) is we have to understand how a policy might affect the "aggregate." In other words, how will it affect most people or a large enough share to make a difference in job creation.

And we should ask our politicians who are espousing these economic theories this crucial question: Tell us of a study, an example or data that suggest at the most your theory about the policy is true? And if they can't give a good answer to that, we ask: So are we just supposed to take your statement on faith, just believe you that it will happen?

So do tax cuts create jobs? The answer is basically, "It depends.'

And if they end up concluding we should just believe them. Buyer beware!

Colorado shootings and the local sentiment on guns

The view of the world from Mankato, Minn., got pretty crazy this past week.

From the Aurora, Colo., theater shootings from the weekend to the biggest penalties ever imposed on a college football program, the wires were burning with breaking news and the locals weighed in too.

I'm always amazed how quickly gun rights supporters e-mail me when these shootings occur. I don't know if they're attempting a pre-emptive strike against newspaper editorials condemning gun laws, but there's nothing like a mass shooting to get gun defenders motivated.

The Free Press editorial board has not taken a firm stand on gun laws for some time. We'll likely discuss a response next week, but it will likely be centrist as our editorial board has a diverse political mix of thinking on most issues.

The prevailing pundit buzz is that both political parties are afraid to change gun laws, make them tougher and take on the National Rifle Association. It's a sentiment I tend to agree with.

The irony is that the assault rifle ban that was in place for about 10 years came from the shooting of the staff member - James Brady - of Republican President Ronald Reagan. It's equally interesting that Democrats and Republicans voted to end the ban or let it expire.

But even hunting and gun enthusiasts I know still can't see a need to sell multiple-shot, semi-automatic assault rifles.

Talks at a lunch this week centered around how its tougher to get a driver's license, or sign up for cable or cell phones than it is to buy assault rifles and order 6,000 rounds of ammunition online.

Of course, there are many hardcores who claim the Colorado shooter would have gotten an assault rifle even if they were illegal. That may be true, but one cannot argue it would be JUST AS EASY to get an assault rifle if they were illegal versus them being at the counter at the local gunshop.

Maybe if we made buying an assault rifle as tough as we're trying to make voting, we'd be dangerous, or, I mean, more safe.

Latest political moves offers some surprises

It’s no surprise that the House Republicans voted Thursday for the 33^rd time to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or the health care reform.

Even the right-leaning media declared it a symbolic act and I guess it was to re-affirm House GOP opposition to the law after the Supreme Court and one of their own, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, was the deciding vote upholding the law.

There were some surprises though in other political arenas.

It was somewhat surprising the Gov. Mark Dayton decided he would make the final decisions on which of some 90 projects would get a piece of the $47.5 million in bonding money the Legislature allocated as a kind of open-ended, competition for the funds.

In a conference call with DEED Commissioner Mark Phillips, we learned he was not all that excited about having the final decision, as was to be the initial plan.

He told The Free Press “It defies logic” that the Legislature left it up to DEED.

A day later, Dayton announced he would be making the final decision after reviewing DEED's recommendations.

It's in a way new unprecedented power given to a governor, and especially surprising since it was the opposite party that gave him that power.

That Dayton will decide may or may not be good for Mankato’s request for $14 million in bonding for the Verizon Wireless Center expansion.

It may be good because Dayton is well aware of how many times we’ve asked for the money and been denied while other very similar projects around the state have been granted funds.

There was no subtly among Democrats in asserting our projects were long denied by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty through line item vetoes simply because Mankato was represented by Democrats and other areas were represented by Republicans.

Democrats voiced the same criticism even stronger this past year when Mankato was left out of the bonding bills while projects in Rochester and St. Cloud, represented by Republicans, were left in.

So it seems Dayton would be sympathetic to the nature of that battle and how Mankato has been on the losing end for no good reason.

On the other hand, the governor could see the recent Highway 14 project he helped approve as one that gives us our “share” of state dollars.

Stay tuned.

Health care ruling poses huge risk for Republicans in election

The conventional wisdom that the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding the Affordable Care Act will provide election ammo for Republicans that will be armor piercing shells against the Obama campaign shows again the over-reading and over reaching on the part of Republican strategists.

They're not over-reading because people will embrace the act now that the Supreme Court said it's constitutional, but because they have not accurately assessed the risk of people misunderstanding the ruling. And, most importantly, they have not really assessed how well their complicated message of opposing the ruling on health care will be received.

First, let's talk about who's in play here. As always, it's the independents, who both parties desperately need. The Supreme Court ruling will hold sway with some of those people. After all, until recently, the Supreme Court was the most respected institution in the land. Political rhetoric from justices like Anton Scalia is changing that rather quickly.

Still, that the Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of ACA is pretty big. That, alone, will sway some independents to at least give it another look.

If Obama people are smart, they will capitalize on the "another look" and do a media blitz explaining the benefits of the ACA, such as people earning $50,000 a year can probably get cheaper health insurance.

Second, think about what Republicans have to sell. They have to convince independents that the benefits some are already receiving -- keeping your kids on your health insurance until they're 26 and the pre-existing conditions issue -- will be good to do away with.

Then, they have to convince those independents that they're be able to restore those benefits (many Republicans have endorsed them) by passing a new law, with some new, unknown revenue source.

Even if they have a good plan, it's a very complicated message. And complicated message will not sell in a general election. You've got to be able to explain policies to people in a few sentences.

As a media expert, here's my best shot at how you would sell the Republican idea in a few simple sentences. As a salesman, you have to answer objections before they come up.

Objection number 1: "How do you explain the Supreme Court rules this constitutional?"

Republican candidate: "The Supreme Court isn't always right."

Questioner "Isn't the majority considered conservative and mostly appointed by Republicans?"

Republican candidate; "Well yes, sort of."

It's really tough to answer that question. You could say. "The Supreme Court was right. They called the penalty a tax."

Ok, that may work

Questioner: "So how would you repeal it all, give me the good parts and pay for it?"

Republican candidate: "We'd let the private sector set prices based on all these new benefits. That's the way the world works."

Honestly, I can't figure out how else they would sell their position. And with angst between employees and employers at a record high with high unemployment, I'm guessing a lot of folks, even independents, are not really going to buy the private sector thing.

Their recent experience with the private sector is mostly negative. Even if the private sector could do this well, people, because of their RECENT experience, will be hard pressed to buy that argument. (What has the private sector done for me lately?)

A recent poll by Politico sorts of backs up my reasoning here.

Independents, and Americans in general, are split 50-50 bascially on the Supreme Court ruling. That's in very sharp contrast with general polls that say only 30- 40 percent of Americans agree with the ACA.

So how can 50 percent agree with the ruling while 60 to 70 percent oppose the act? Wouldn't those who oppose the ruling parallel the number who oppose the law?

I've always felt the poll numbers on people supporting the ACA were distorted because number one, people don't really know yet the benefits they will get, and two, it's a very complicated issue.

Republicans should look to their colleague governor in Michigan, who was one of the few who said he was going to set up health care exchanges in his state per the federal law so the feds don't do it for his citizens.

Data is starting to come out on benefits of the act -- how many young people are on their insurance and importantly, a rebate expected to be given to millions of Americans on their health premium via the provisions of ACA very soon.

Those will be difficult objections to answer for Republicans and more importantly the messages will be complicated, meaning they won't reach as many people.

When an economic system has too much "Greece"

I don't consider myself short of education with six-years of post-secondary, but I was until recently just kind of confounded and befuddled on how a small country like Greece could essentially pull down the world economy.

A very fine piece by the Associated Press that can be found here at The Free Press website is the best explanation yet that I have seen.

I will try to give you the Reader's Digest version to pique your interest and then you can read the detailed stuff that some journalist -- not blogger -- has taken time to learn, understand and report in a credible and digestible way.

Essentially, Greece's economy is a mess. They've got too much debt, and don't spend their money wisely. People work but don't get paid by the private sector, and some people don't work and still get paid by the government.

But there are a lot of bigger countries that hold a lot of that Greek debt. So if Greece doesn't or can't pay, those countries and the big banks associated with those countries don't necessarily fail, but they face a big time hurt.

And when they hurt, they lend less money. The bank examiners are on them and they generally pull in lending at a time when the economy needs money.

Secondly, this whole Euro currency issue ties the world together in ways not readily apparent. If Greece goes back to the drachma, a less stable currency than the unified Euro, people in Greece will lose confidence the currency will be worth anything (why would it) and they would begin to buy stuff, hoard stuff and pull their money as quickly as possible out of the banks.

And because most countries like Greece and the U.S. have what is called "fractional reserve systems" people can't pull their money all at once because the banks don't have it. They lent it out knowing that not everyone usually needs their money all at the same time.

Of course, a bank run in Greece could cause bank runs in other countries that hold Greek debt. It's not logical, but then we're living in a crazy world.

And another problem on the Euro front. If Greece dumps the Euro (it appears now given the recent election it WILL NOT dump the Euro), those who hold Greek debt in Euros are all of a sudden worried because they fear the drachma will not be worth as much as Euros. (They're probably right).

So they sell like crazy the Euro on the futures exchanges. Others sell other stuff including international stocks based on Euros. It's a downward spiral.

Eventually, this debt and fears of Greece debt being worthless goes back to multi-national banks that do business in America. They actually built complicated investment products called "credit default swaps" (remember 2008 crisis?), which are like insurance against something like Greek debt being worthless.

Hence, if Greek debt is worthless, the credit default swap insurance kicks in at a higher rate than anyone expected, and more people have to pay, and pay, and pay. Banks or investment houses paying out credit insurance again, have less money to lend.

There. How's that for Reader's Digest. Again, read the whole story here. It's long, but it's very informative.