The Tragedy of Allentown

Last week, Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski was finally indicted. He received multiple counts of bribery and mail fraud, among other things, for running a pay-for-play scheme. Basically, if you believe the indictment, Ed Pawlowski sold city contracts for campaign contributions and personal goodies- like Eagles tickets and dinner. If you believe the Feds accounting, Mike Fleck essentially set up a business where he represented most of the city government, some of the local unions, and the contractors that sought city business. You had to hire from among his clients in order to get business- and the Mayor was always there, always approving of the behavior, because it personally benefited himself and his ambitions. Again, it's all alleged at this point, everyone deserves a day in court, even people I don't happen to personally love.

The other side of this, of course, is that the city of Allentown is now in a state of chaos. Just months before the election for Mayor, the incumbent is both on the ballot and under indictment. The city government is not very functional right now, as Council and the Mayor are largely at odds. State and federal officials don't want to work with a city hall that is largely seen as corrupted. The progress of the downtown is in peril, particularly because of somewhat unwarranted fears that the political chaos will make business impossible. This is essentially the worst case scenario, and it probably will be until at least November. If Nat Hyman, the Republican nominee, is somehow elected Mayor in such a Democratic city (a real possibility in this chaotic race), or Ray O'Connell wins as a write-in after finishing second in the primary, the chaos will probably begin to clear with Pawlowski gone. If Pawlowski wins re-election, it's hard to see anything happening until he would be cleared in a trial.

The real losers here are the public, who has yet another reason to doubt their government, and will not see improvements to their quality of life while this cloud is here. Pawlowski had managed to get a lot done in Allentown, and now that is in question, regardless of how things turn out. The odds, based on the number of plea deals and the length of the investigation, are that Pawlowski is guilty of something- even if it happened because he was negligent and hired a corrupt political consultant. While the criminal system will play out, the political system will not, at least not until this sad case is litigated politically in November.

Wrestling With My Dreams

I took a little break from writing, in part because I was busy, and because I just had little to say. I took a short trip to North Carolina this weekend, one that was a lot of fun- it was my cousin's 21st birthday. It was my first trip back to the Tar Heel state since I left after the 2016 Election. I'll talk more about that later though.

Yesterday morning, I was awakened at 7:30 am by the sound of another cousin's children playing video games in the room I was in. I managed to handle that situation and get myself back to sleep. In the time just before being awakened, and just after falling back asleep, I had two of the more vivid dreams I've ever had, at least that I was able to remember.

• I had a dream that I was sitting around a table, by a pool, with a bunch of old friends. Each of them are people I still consider friends, but at some point I had an issue of some kind with them. We were discussing, of all things, my future. They were urging me to "join the club"- which in each of their cases meant having a wife and/or kids. It was definitely weird, and I was just laughing through most of the discussion. The dream ended with me jumping in the pool.
• The more freaky dream of the two begins with me coming down a hill, and being at the back of my childhood church. It seems bigger than the church really is, but it was most definitely my church, and I recognized it as such. I walked into the side yard, and found a door that somehow went into the altar area of the church (this door does not exist in real life, and the side yard wouldn't go into there, but whatever). I walked into that door, and the church was very dark inside, but not quite totally black where I couldn't tell it was a church inside. I walked down the aisle in the center, towards the back of the church, but turned back towards the door when I noticed a wind, and the dimming of the light. I looked towards the open door, and the sunny day that had existed when I walked in was suddenly darkening, quickly. A storm was coming, and the dim light I had that was guiding me through this building was disappearing. I was being left in the dark. The dream simply ended.

I don't have any way of really interpreting these dreams, but both have stuck with me for a day now. I interpret them both to have to do with aging, and my desire to both be authentic to the person I have been, and to grow into the person I'm becoming. Both deal with some deeper thoughts on the identity of the person I am at 34 years old, and whether or not i'm comfortable with it. At least I think. I don't know though.

Sarsour, Griffin, and Left-Wing Goals

I don't think Linda Sarsour is stupid, in fact I think the opposite. She's a really smart, capable person, who took a leading role in the Women's March on January 21st. She was smart enough, as someone who didn't like Hillary Clinton, to essentially "box out" the first female Democratic nominee, so I know she's politically savvy enough as an operator. She knows what she's doing, and why she's doing it, when she does it. Things aren't accidental- including her recent call for a "jihad" against the Trump Administration at a Muslim conference. Does the word "jihad" have several interpretations? Yes. Do I think Sarsour wants people to be violent? No. Do I think she deliberately used that word for dramatic effect? Yes.

Kathy Griffin isn't some rookie comedian. She's also not stupid, Kathy Griffin has been around long enough to know that jokes about political figures constantly walk a fine line.When Kathy Griffin sent out a picture of her holding what appears to be Donald Trump's severed head (seen above), Griffin certainly should have known this was a stupid idea, regardless of the reprehensible nature of her joke's target.

If people who go over the top aren't stupid, then why do they do things that don't help their cause? To be clear, these types of actions do not help actual Democrats win actual elections- and yet these things will continue to happen. While these actions may be viewed positive by members of the Democratic Party that hate Trump, that's not a big enough cross-section of America to win elections. Calling for a "Jihad," or joking about harming the President actually probably helps the Republican Party because it puts an extremist face on all Democrats. It's really stupid, if you're goal is to win elections. The goal of every Democrat should be to win elections, so that you can govern, so that you can carry out the policies you ran on, so that you can help the people you promised to help. Anything not in that chain of goals shouldn't be done.

In Kathy Griffin's case it's easy to figure out why she did this- she's a comedian, and comedians want to make money. If 10% of America loves her, she makes money, and she can be quite happy. So yeah, of course she did this. Democrats should have been quick to condemn her, to the extent that she even matters. Obviously her goals and our goals don't cross paths too often.

What about Linda Sarsour? Her calling for a "Jihad" plays into every right-wing stereotype and fear that exists, regardless of how the rest of us "know better." Sarsour is smart enough to know that. The truth is, I don't think Sarsour's goal is Democratic wins in 2017 and 2018. Her goal is a political revolution. She wants to lead a movement, not worry about the mechanics of winning elections.

Why did they do this? Well, I don't think they really share these goals. Griffin is a professional comedian, she wants to make money. Sarsour knew that saying "Jihad" would not be helpful in the short term, but her goal is a "political" revolution, not winning and governing now- in fact, arguably, not winning is helpful for her goals. For both of them, these events help them get to their goal. Their goals are not necessarily the goals of us in the actual political process.

So You Want Single Payer Health Care...

...You know what, I do too, at least in principle. I want everybody to have health care, universal care is my goal. Lowering costs is also my goal. The current American health care system is a disgrace- we leave tens of millions of people uninsured, while spending more than anybody else for mediocre to poor outcomes. I'm not as married to a supposed "single-payer" system as some advocates, because I see it as a vehicle, not a goal in it's own right, but I'd love to see a good single-payer system emerge. It's not simple though, so let's dive through a few good faith questions about this plan.

1. What single-payer model are we aiming for? The UK system is not the same as the Canadian system, is not the same as the Polish system, is not the same as the German system. Different systems have different funding systems, different benefits covered, and different regulations. Some have private "supplemental" insurance. We would need to define what system we're emulating here.
2. How much are we willing to pay for this? The big problem with the California "single-payer" bill is that it cost 200% of the state's total existing budget. The U.S. health care system we have costs about $3.8 trillion a year, and is growing, which is slightly more than the current Federal Budget. The Bernie Sanders single-payer bill doesn't have a CBO Score, but the Trump White House calls it a $32 trillion bill, over ten years, which works out to $3.2 trillion a year. It's not like we have a limitless budget, so what's the number over what we spend now? In 2017, we are projected to spend $1.041 trillion from the Federal government on health care. $590 billion of that is the existing Medicare program, $385 billion is Medicaid, $51 billion in subsidies on the exchanges, and $15 billion for CHIP. So, think like triple that to fund a proposed "single-payer" system.
3. What are we going to cover under a national health care system? It would seem obvious to cover major medical costs, long-term costs, and prescription drugs, but what about regular visits with specialists, or annual check-ups? Obviously a program on a budget would only be able to guarantee as much care as that budget allows. This is a tricky area because it's politically impossible to get right. Unless you pick off costs and care in parts, it's difficult.
4. Will this be administered federally or at the state level? Will it be nationalized into the bureaucracy, or largely administered through private insurers? This goes largely to how much cost control you'll really get.
5. How are you going to fund this system? The U.S. Government has been running fairly large deficits as is, so in order to fund a program like this, you'd have to create additional revenue streams, or make substantial cuts in other areas of the budget- which honestly means in defense spending. Would their be some sort of "premium" tax on the public? Even growing health care spending several hundred million dollars would take some sort of additional revenue stream. I suppose that if you completely severed the employment-insurance connection, you could place some form of tax on employers to collect some of the costs, but what's the economic gain if you go too far with that (since one of the goals of a single-payer system is removing the cost of buying insurance for employers?)? How much can you gain through payroll tax increases? Would you just raise income taxes to pay for it? There would have to be some form of tax increases under any system where the government takes on more of health care, the question is where?
6. How will you deal with de-constructing the insurance sector? If you destroy private insurance, whether totally or partially, how will we deal with the job losses? Insurance is a huge business. Sure, some employees could come work on the new program, but probably not all, if we're driving down price. We will have to be prepared for a shock to the market, complete with lots of unemployed people needing benefits in all 50 states, unless you administrate the program through existing insurers. This isn't an easy problem to deal with.
7. How are you going to pass this bill? Ok, here's the hard part- the ACA barely passed a Democratic Congress. The ACA couldn't get the votes in the Senate for a "public option" on the bill, and Congress was better then. Assuming the Democrats can't get back to 60 votes, can a single-payer bill even get a vote? Could a public option bill? Could a Medicare expansion bill? Republicans currently want to limit Medicaid spending or kill it altogether, so are they going to accept further expansion to get universal coverage? Remember, every President from FDR until President Obama failed to pass any national health care system. This is pretty hard.

In my mind, I don't see any chance at all right now of passing the full "single-payer" plan nationally. I could see some sort of age/means based buy-in plan for Medicare or Medicaid to cover more people. I also could see an expansion of Medicare or Medicaid to absorb major and catastrophic medical costs and maybe prescription drugs, with automatic enrollment for everyone, but even that would be quite expensive. The hurdles to the "single-payer" system that some people have in mind are substantial, if not impossible. The idea of actual "free" health care for the public is probably not even worth discussing.

Attack of the Alt-Left Freaks

Well, I made it- onto a "Bernie or Bust" hate list. You know what? I'm proud. I got put on a list with Neera Tanden, Joy Reid, Joan Walsh, Kurt Eichenwald, Debra Messing and 24 other really cool people- and me. I mean, i'm honored to be elevated like that, but it was a bit of a surprise. I run campaigns for a living and have won a couple of minor elections. Some of these people have TV shows. I was literally hanging out in a dive bar in Easton on Sunday.

But since they've added me to their little list, I guess I should respond- I'm both proud and wearing it as a badge of honor, and a bit confused. No, I don't support Bernie Sanders. No, I don't support the Democratic Socialists of America. I guess in that sense, I am their enemy. I'm not sure how they think they are going to win elections and govern like this though? I agree with them on creating a universal health care system, making college affordable to all, protecting the environment, and a whole host of other issues, even if I am not buying into their specifics. If they're going to call me a corporate shill and attempt to have me cyber-harassed or worse, how are they going to get to 51% of American support? Despite what they believe, there is not popular mass support for socialism in America, so if these folks are going to attempt to push me into the abyss, who are their voters going to be? Perhaps they haven't thought of that yet. Perhaps they don't actually care, this is just about "winning" and being right? I don't know.

I want to thank @geoffmiami for adding me to this hate list of his. To thins point today, nearly 2,500 new people have followed me on Twitter, pushing my audience to over 9,000 people. That's over 9,000 people I can talk to about the policies and candidates of the Democratic Party, and how we're going to pull America back from the mess Donald Trump is trying to launch us into. Sure, I guess at least part of my mind wandered to wondering about my personal safety, but these people are too inept to actually hurt anyone- they thought this list would in any way hurt me.

On Nancy Pelosi...

There are some calling for Nancy Pelosi to resign as Democratic Leader in the U.S. House in the wake of the losses last week in GA-06 and SC-05's special elections. These people are misguided. Nancy Pelosi had absolutely no impact on the outcome of those races. Let's be clear- the Republican Party would attack anyone who was leading the Democratic Caucus in either the House or Senate, and try to blame them for everything wrong in America. If you replaced her, you still would not have won those seats. If you want to blame the DCCC for spending $30 million in a seat they probably can't ever win, with a 30 year old nominee that was a "documentary film maker," and didn't live in the district- well, I'm with you. And yes, Nancy could make massive changes over at the DCCC if she so chose- at least in theory.

Some people want to defend Pelosi though. My friend Sally writes of Pelosi:

Nancy Pelosi is an extremely effective party leader. She got ACA thru. She got every single Democrat to sign the discharge petition to reopen the government in 2013. And she has kept her caucus unanimous against every form of AHCA.

That’s why GOP wants her gone. Nancy gets it done. She beats them every time. Anyone who doesn’t get that doesn’t really understand how things work.

Sally's basically right- basically. The one time Nancy does not seem to beat the GOP is at the ballot box though, an empirical fact that cannot be denied. Nancy Pelosi was elected to the House Leadership beginning in 2001- when I was a junior in high school- as the Democratic Whip, before becoming Leader in 2003. In the past 17 years, Democrats held the majority for four years. That is not a good ratio. I obviously agree that gerrymandering and voter suppression has played a huge role in those defeats (several times the Democrats got more votes and didn't win), but a shrewd leader changes strategies to win. I realize that there are forces in the Democratic Party that aren't crazy about running moderates, white guys, or any other type of candidate that allows us to win outside of heavily urban settings, but here's reality- Congress has a geography balance against us. If you want to govern, and help the people who we represent, you have to run candidates who can win seats. Nancy's not all to blame here, but she's the most powerful Democrat in Washington, and so there's an argument that she should have done more to win.

Ultimately though, I side with Sally and others who want Nancy Pelosi to stay. She's incredibly effective at the legislative game, the main part of this job. Replacing her right now is incredibly dangerous- we could end up with any number of very bad options who hurt the party. It's important that we don't gloss over the actual negatives of Nancy's tenure though- the lost elections, the pure length of time she's been leader- just because we want her to stay though. Nancy Pelosi has been a great leader of the party, and has the achievements to verify that, but the House Democrats have lead the House of Representatives for just four of the last 23 years- which means changes must be made by whoever is the leader.

The Phillies Don't Deserve an All-Star...

The Philadelphia Phillies are 24-50- an astoundingly bad record at this stage. They are on 52 win pace, and really have nothing to be excited about. Their pitching? Bad. The line-up? Bad. Relievers? Pathetic. Bench? Not so good. This team is just plain bad, by any standard we apply. Today they get to face Zack Greinke as well, so expect another loss (though Nick Pivetta did just beat Chris Sale).

In a couple weeks, someone from the Philadelphia Phillies will be named to the National League All-Star team. That's a travesty. This team is on 110 loss pace, and their best two players so far (Howie Kendrick and Cesar Hernandez) have been hurt as much as they've played. If there was ever a good argument to eliminate the requirement for every team to get an All-Star, this one is it.

FEMA Has No Director

Yesterday afternoon I saw a friend who works at the Department of Homeland Security, and inevitably her and I's conversation turned to her work. Today is June 26th, and a Hurricane Dora has formed off the coast of Mexico. Obviously hurricanes can do a lot of damage, and we hope the government is ready to respond to this one. There's a problem though- Donald Trump has not appointed a FEMA Director. Currently, I believe Region 9's Director is the "Acting" Director right now, which is okay, but not sufficient. This is an essential government job, and the government isn't ready to do it.

Uh oh...