Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v47)

Here we go again, New York. 

We're losing gambling money to neighboring states, dammit, and we're not going to take it anymore!

First, there was the casino money we were hemorrhaging to neighboring states.

Then, it was sports betting at our casinos, something we needed, you know, to fund things like education and gambling addiction treatment, and to stop bleeding money to neighboring states. And to help our underperforming casinos, which were not generating nearly the revenue we expected. 

Then it was mobile sports betting, because, you know, funding education, even more gambling addiction treatment, and buying tourniquets to stop the blood loss from all that hemorrhaging we've been doing are important governmental functions, as is helping casinos addict more gamblers.

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years.

Why? Well, we're addicted to the money gambling brings in, of course, and the success of mobile sports betting can't be ignored. It's

spurring discussion to permit online casino gaming — also known as iGaming — in the state, allowing games like blackjack, roulette and others to be played from a mobile device.

And, of course, because of those darn neighboring states that already allow it. After all, as Sen. Joseph Addabbo, chair of the Senate's Addiction Funding Committee (sorry - the Racing, Gaming, & Wagering Committee), says

Other states surrounding us are doing it. We can do this. I think it's the conversation we have to have dictated by the poor fiscal situation we're going to be in next year.

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Fast forward to January 2024, and the legislation is being worked on in earnest. According to Addabbo 

It's a good bill. We got a lot of input from a lot of individuals, but it's a starting point. It's a starting point where I'm hoping that we can have these kinds of discussions during the budget process.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds? 

As proposed, the licensing fees for the iStuff would be a cool $2M, and revenues would be taxed at 30.5%, which could generate a billion dollars annually. And, of course, we're hemorrhaging that money to PA and NJ now. Once we get that back, we'll be in good shape, Addabbo thinks.

We need to look at the outyears, 2025, 2026, where according to the state comptroller the fiscal situation only gets worse, then we do need to figure out a sustainable plan both short-term and long-term and that is iGaming and iLottery.

And what about those problem gamblers? There's $11M in annual funding for "addiction services and supports." I'm not sure if that money is dedicated solely to gambling addicts, or if it covers all other causes of addiction as well. But we do need to act with urgency, it seems.

If we're serious about helping people with a gaming problem, knowing that they're doing iGaming anyway in New York, they're just doing it illegally, then you try to do it this year because that will actually help the New Yorker who is already participating in iGaming.

But wait - there's more! Progressive more!

To ensure "existing union casino employees" aren't threatened by the new option, there's a "a fund of at least $25M annually" towards training and supporting employees of private business enterprises - because that's the New York Way. Addabbo also said we may see more union jobs created because people will be able to sit in their jammies and play poker on their phones - with live dealers. I'm sure they'll be even more addicting than CGI dealers.

Anyone who's already allowed to feed our gambling addiction won't be ignored, either. Existing license holders, including "current video lottery terminal licensees, mobile sports betting operators, state-licensed and Native American casinos" can participate in the iJunk if they like.

I'll be following this one as we go through the legislative session.

Yes, We Can Do Something (Part 1)

As I mentioned in the Introduction, some friends and I have had running conversations about mass shootings and gun safety legislation since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Honestly, that's way too long for us to be working on this.

Before we dive into our recommendations, there's some ground to cover, including these overarching principles:

We need to change how we talk about the goal. It is not to prevent mass shootings from happening; the goal is to make it harder for someone to commit mass carnage, and to reduce the number of deaths should such an event occur. 

And, gun safety legislation must stand alone, with no unrelated amendments or attachments. Any attempts to attach anything that is not directly related to gun safety shall be considered a bribe.. 

That second one may seem extreme, but one of the problems we have is that literally anything can be attached to a bill, no matter how far removed from the topic at hand. The only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to be absurdly strict.  

For these discussions, the term 'guns' excludes air guns, nail guns, starter pistols, bubble guns, staple guns, Nerf guns, water pistols, etc., and includes handguns, rifles, sidearms, firearms, so-called 'assault weapons,' semi-automatic weapons, 'military-style' weapons', 'weapons of war' and other terms of disgust or endearment. We all know what we're talking about here, and pretending otherwise is merely a deflection. 

What else? These changes would impact all gun sales, not just sales of the type of weapon used in mass shootings, and would standardize processes at the federal level.  States could opt to add additional regs if desired.  I'm aware some progress may have been made in some areas in the years since we first started these conversations. And finally, we tried to take an 'all of the above' approach, to this, addressing key themes from both sides of the argument, in the interest of allowing everyone a victory or two. 

So: here are some recommendations related to legal purchases of guns:

• Raise the legal age for purchasing guns. If it's not safe for kids to purchase alcohol until they are 21, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun until they're 21. If that means the age for voting and being drafted, should the need arise, must be raised to 21, so be it. 

• Require registration of all guns on a federal gun license, regardless of the gun type, and regardless of how bought, sold, or otherwise transferred to a different owner. Everyone who owns a gun must have a license to do so. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

• Require mandatory videotaping of all gun sales and require a 'green light' result on a background check, rather than just the absence of a 'red light.' These ideas are good ones, and came from Walmart, after the mass shooting at their El Paso store left 23 people dead. 

• Require yearly renewal of the federal gun license, to include proficiency testing for all guns on the license. Testing should also include an assessment of a person's decision-making ability, such as when to fire vs. when to de-escalate. This training is critical to support the 'good guy with a gun' argument.

• Enhance the federal background check process, to include a check of criminal records, mental health records, and social media posts to identify potentially risky gun owners, and to give them a chance to respond to the findings. The background check must be applied to all gun sales and transfers.

• Implement mandatory reporting into the federal background check system. (a) All law enforcement organizations and security companies must provide timely reporting on all incidents involving all types of guns. (b) All branches of the United States Military must provide timely reporting of relevant data, including all discharge statuses. (c) All social media companies, 'discussion boards,' gaming platforms, etc. must proactively monitor for and report threats of violence, or actual violence, to a designated agency. (d) Requirements will be developed to ensure sufficient but only minimally necessary data is reported. (e) Additionally, all medical facilities and practitioners must provide timely reporting of anonymized data on gunshot victims to the CDC to allow for research, policy development, educational, and legislative purposes. (f) Failure to comply with the reporting requirements will result in an escalated financial and/or criminal penalty process.

• Eliminate state background check systems upon implementation of the enhanced federal system. Historical data from the separate state systems must be incorporated into the federal system before they are shut down.

• Implement a minimum 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases and transfers. One year after implementation of the new background check system, an assessment of the average time to complete a background check will be reviewed, and adjustments to the 10-day waiting period may be considered at that time.

• Attach a federal excise tax to the purchases of guns as we do cigarettes, fuel, airline tickets and alcohol. Taxes collected will be placed in a dedicated fund, used solely in support of gun safety efforts. The fund will be audited annually to ensure the tax is being collected, allocated, and distributed as intended. 

These recommendations pertain to ammunition sales and purchases.

• Require mandatory reporting on large ammunition sales, like the reporting in place today for deposits under federal banking regulations. The definition of 'large' sales will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

• Attach a federal excise tax to ammunition, as outlined above.

• Limit the sale of high-capacity magazines. The definition of 'high-capacity' will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

Coming up, I'll look at things we can do to ensure bad guys with guns are dealt with appropriately; red flag laws; mental health, and more.

Sidebar: Sunday School 4/10/22

One of the things that drives me nuts is how no one challenges the talking heads when they toss stuff unsupported nonsense out into the universe. A perfect case in point? The discussion on Fox News Sunday on "how national security and energy policy go hand-in-hand."

Dana Perino asked Britt Hume if he thought "President Biden will get to a place where he will figure out a way to buck the progressives and move forward to allow us to drill more here at home?"  Here's how his response started (I added the emphasis).

Well, I think he and his party are pretty much enthralled to the Green Movement and his energy policies to date have reflected that, and they have obviously -- are restraining the potential of American energy production, which would be at this point I think it's fair to say -- ... that we need more of everything. 

"More of everything" is the 'all of the above' policy. It acknowledges the need to increase our use of renewables, as well as our continued reliance on fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, and oil - "certainly for now and for the near future," Hume said on Sunday. Here's more of his response.

And I don't think the president is ready to go there, they will blame the oil companies for not producing enough and so on. We've heard that many times before, and they blame the oil companies for higher gas prices and all the rest of it. But the best way to get gas prices down is to throw open the regulatory barriers and let the United States energy industry go, which it certainly can...

If we did that, he said, we could supply countries in Western Europe with energy to make up for what they're not going to be getting anymore from Russia. And that would "cut off the flow of Western funds into Vladimir Putin's war chest." Perino said Hume's answer "makes sense to me. We'll see if it makes sense to them going forward." 

Of course, it makes sense to Perino and Hume: if we're cutting regulations, everything will be fine, right? Well, no; what Hume's selling, the oil industry isn't buying.

Last month there was a gathering in Houston called CERAWeek. I stumbled on it, looking for info on this issue. According to its website,  

For forty years, CERAWeek has been providing an integrated framework for understanding what’s ahead for global energy markets, geopolitics, and technology. Participants include senior executives, government officials, thought leaders, academics, technology innovators and financial leaders.​ 

Among the speakers last month? Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who did as Hume suggested: she asked for increased production: 

We are on war footing and we have to respond. We have to increase short-term supply...The message right now, and I hope investors are listening, is that we can’t have one element holding back when you see what is happening every night. At this moment, we all have to give.

Here's where it gets interesting; there's this great reporting from Freightwaves.com, which covered CERAWeek (emphasis added).

Even as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm was using the platform of a major energy industry conference to call on the nation’s oil producers to ramp up production, what was being said during other sessions made clear that was not likely to happen. 

The increasing U.S. industries’ strategy of restrained output and investment was on display last week at two separate panels at CERAWeek. It’s a game plan that has implications not only for the price of oil in the short and medium terms, but also for the transportation industries that serve it.

And it wasn't just one person saying production wouldn't be ramped up - it was several people.

• Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the largest producers in the shale fields of the U.S., said "We’re not going to chase growth like we all did.” His comments came during a panel discussion on 'balancing growth and investor returns in the North American shale market.' The plan? Keep growth rates at 5%.

Unfortunately, government estimates are for slightly over 7% growth, to help replace the four million barrels of Russian oil a day that's no longer available.

• On the same panel? Tim Leach, an EVP at ConocoPhillips, who said that “accelerating investment in an inflationary environment is never a good idea,” and he added, a “long-term view is 'what creates value for our shareholders'.” 

• On a different panel, Chad Michael, president of an energy-sector investment bank, said that among investors, there's "an expectation of returning significant amounts of cash flow." And he said "the business model is mid-single-digit growth, because that is what investors want."

He said, they can't do much more because of labor and supply chain issues, something Granholm acknowledged in her remarks, too. The article did note that Biden's goal of moving away from fossil fuels has an impact on investing, but everyone knows the industry is not going anywhere anytime soon.

• Raoul LeBlanc, a VP at S&P global, suggested that in the face of calls for more production, the industry needs to ask "just how reasonable is it to step on the accelerator?' The current impact won't last forever." 

Why didn't anyone mention a prohibitive regulatory environment? Here's more on that, again from the Freightwaves.com reporters.

HOUSTON — A key State Department official used an appearance at energy industry event CERAWeek to take on what he said were “myths” about the Biden administration’s energy policy... 

The official was Amos Hochstein, Senior Advisor for Global Energy Security at the State Department. 

Hochstein disputed the view that the administration “is somehow holding back or is responsible for the industry not being able to produce a rising amount of oil.”

Production is up since Biden took office, but in recent weeks it's been holding steady; during that time, pressure on everyone to stop using Russian oil, and on the industry to replace it, increased.

When Hochstein has spoken with oil industry officials, he said he has asked them if the Biden administration had taken steps that are restricting production. “The bizarre thing is they told me it is not true,” Hochstein said. “The industry said there is no bottleneck for added production.” 

Rather, he said, issues outside the federal government's control, including labor shortages and problems with the supply of fracking sand, are hurting production. 

What's that all about? According to a report from Reuters (emphasis added)  

Sand supplies are so tight that it is slowing the pace of work for some oil drillers, and higher costs for sand are eating into the bottom line for others....

Hmm...what on earth is going on here? Well, sand that cost in the low teens at the beginning of the pandemic, and rose to $20-$25 per ton, and now they're at $50-$70 a ton - something industry consultants called "unheard of in the industry's modern history." 

And what's hampering the sand market? Labor and delivery - as in, they're short-handed getting the sand out of the ground, and there are shortages in the trucking industry, too. Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the issue across the board, right? 

So, back to Hume and Perino, and the rest of the talking heads, no matter what side of the oil rig they sit on. I get that they're paid to offer opinions, and that most of them are anti-Biden (for a whole host of reasons). But at some point, someone with a microphone is going to have to stop talking about the politics of everything, and start talking about reality. 

Everyone knows gas prices are high, but most people don't know why; they'll listen to Hume and think that it's a regulatory issue. Or, they'll listen to someone else say it's price-gouging, or extreme profit-taking at the corporate level. And they'll all be at least partly wrong - some more wrong than others. Getting these folks to take time out of their endless discussions on the political implications of this stuff to talk about the real problems and real solutions we need seems a bridge too far.

If the politicians won't be honest with us, and the talking heads won't, and the 'news' people won't, we're going to keep taking one step forward and two steps back. 

Is that really what we want? And if the answer to that is yes, what the hell is wrong with us?

Wondering on Wednesday 10/6/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering on the Facebook thing: the whistleblower, corporate profits, marketing, artificial intelligence, actual intelligence, ethics, and more. 

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with every other social media outlet?

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with Fox News, MSNBC, and every other television network?

How do you regulate Facebook's  algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do that with the NY Times, the NY Post, and every other print and digital newspaper? 

How does Wikipedia survive this new regulatory framework? Anyone can enter anything they want - who's going to be the boss of that? Are we going to create a regulatory framework for that, too?

Who gets to decide what content is abusive or divisive? Artificial intelligence can't do it, and humans can't do it either. What or who is left? And, even more fun, who gets to pick the arbiters?

What about the 1st Amendment? Doesn't that protect divisive speech?

How is it not insanely ridiculous and hypocritical for members of the House and Senate - professionals all, at spreading misinformation and division - to complain about Facebook's failure to stop the spread of misinformation and division? Seriously - how is that not the most insane aspect of this?

If the said misinformation- and division-spreading legislators decide to change the rules and let Facebook be held liable for 'harm' on its pages, which one of them will be the first to file a suit, and how long will it take - more than 30 minutes, or less than 30 minutes - after the rules are passed? I'm guessing Devin Nunes and less than 10...

If Facebook can be held liable for harm done to someone who's under age and on the platform, will Facebook be able to sue the parents for allowing the child to use the service?

And why do six-year-olds have smart phones, anyway? Who is responsible for that?

Before they go all out and regulate potentially harmful content - something that, by nature of the 'potentially' label, cannot be regulated - will the legislators do something to increase access to and the affordability of mental health services, particularly for children, and particularly for rural areas?

Isn't it ironic, and more than a bit ridiculous, that the same people who would to deny treatment options that would help transgender kids are all up in arms about body image issues on Facebook?

Why would the people who complain about their own voices being stifled on Facebook be willing to stifle other voices on Facebook? Is the algorithm unfair, or do they just not like what it does? Do they really care about any of this, or does it just look good to care, in which case they can make a profit, i.e., get re-elected because they 'showed they care?

How is Facebook to control the viewing habits of its users? For example, how are the people who ignore multiple notices that what they are reading is not real and then argue vigorously, and share widely, their outrage about the outrageously fake posts, supposed to be  protected from themselves?  Who's job is that, anyway?

Or the folks who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the butt cheek in the checkout line at Wegmans? (That's sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm doesn't have actual teeth.) How is Facebook to be held accountable for them? 

Are we going to regulate comedians? Celebrity magazines, with pictures of stars or wanna-be stars and their "boldly topless" photos? The Kardashians and their puffy lips, 'trained' waists, and abundant behinds? People try to emulate them, and cause themselves real physical harm in the process; clearly, that can't be allowed to continue? 

How ironic is it, that the people who don't think the government should be able to require masks or vaccines during a pandemic are now contemplating having the government dictate what we're allowed to see on Facebook? What about "my mind, my choice?"

If we're going to ban detrimental content on Facebook, can we please ban Love Island, Big Brother, Hoarders, My 600-lb-Life, Married at First Sight, Real Housewives, Love After Lockup, Cellmate Secrets, 90-day Diaries, You, Me and My Ex, Ex-Rated, Naked and Afraid, Addicted to Marriage, 90-Day Fiancé, RuPaul’s Drag Race, My Big Fat Fabulous Life, and the rest of the unreal reality TV shows? Without much difficulty, I could make an argument that each of those shows is detrimental in one way or another...and I've never watched any of them.

Who gets to determine how 'good' a company must be in order to be allowed to make a profit? And how will those decisions be made? 

Are we going to require every company to provide us with their internal research on everything they internally research? Or is that just going to be shared with regulators? Just legislators (they're not the same thing as regulators, I can assure you.) And what if someone who gets the information as part of their job decides to leak it, for fun say, to the Wall Street Journal? What's the accountability there?

Based on the number of times the quote was shared, the big soundbite from Frances Haugen's testimony was, "Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook."  

I'm wondering if anyone reading this post can tell me everything that happens inside their current employer, or any of their former employers? I maintain that it's probably true for every company, even those in highly regulated industries, that outsiders don't know what happens inside, and neither do employees. I also maintain that that lack of knowledge can be positive (allowing a company to launch a new product, charitable plan, marketing campaign, etc. without leaks) as much as it can be negative (e.g., Enron, Wells Fargo, and perhaps Facebook, too). 

Especially in a country where we're supposedly working on improving the privacy rights of people. And, of course, where we consider corporations to be people, too. Unless, of course, corporations aren't really people after all. And isn't that a whole nother world of wonderment we can attack... 

What are you wondering about tonight? 

OrangeVerse XLVII: An Orange Flush

Ah, a meeting with cameras and the press - it just brings out the poetry in the president, doesn't it? I know it set my free verse-loving heart all a-flutter, that's for sure.

And that's exactly what happened recently when the president, vice president, and some cabinet members and other dignitaries gathered to talk about reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses.

Let's pick up where the poet talks about the administration's battle against California's emissions standards, lightbulbs, and toilets.

Much, Much, Much
We can make cars much less expensive and

much better and much stronger and about the same

from an environmental standpoint. Very close. But then 
when you realize they don't want to buy new cars because

frankly, they don't work very well. But the cars are much safer.

Our cars are much safer. They're much cheaper. They're much better.

And the reason they're safer is because they can be heavier because right 
now the cars are made out of  papier-mâché. (laughter) 
And ours are actually, we allow steel content (laughter)
But just remember: our cars are safer and they are 
much safer, by the way - and they're better. 
They operate better. And in every way 
we think it's going to be terrific. 

The Lightbulb Goes Off
The lightbulb: they got rid of
the lightbulb that people got used to.
The new bulb is many times more expensive 
and I hate to say it, it doesn't make you look as
good. And we’re doing other things. Of course being
a vain person, that’s very important to me. (Laughter.) 
It’s like a - it gives you an orange look. I don't want an
 want an orange look. (Laughter.) Has anyone noticed that? 
(Laughter.) So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a
couple of rooms where I am in the White House. (Laughter.)
But we are going back to the - - it’s a double standard. We
have a standard of the new bulbs and we have the old bulbs
And they’re already making the old bulbs. Many people
were complaining that the new bulbs were much much
more expensive. Many times in some cases more
expensive and the other thing they are considered
hazardous waste that because it's largely, a gas
 gas technology, when the bulb is disposed
of you're supposed to bring it to a haz-
ardous waste site. I said how many
people do that? Nobody does it
and you know that's a bad
thing. So you have proba-
bly heard about it You 
probably read about it.
And you'll be able to
to buy lightbulbs that
are better lighting in 
the opinion of many
and I tell you in my
opinion - and for a
lot less money. And
so we're doing that
but you'll also be a-
ble - if you want -
you can buy the
other bulbs also. 
And I'll tell you,
the bulb compa-
nies are - very - 
happy about that.

One Flush Two Flush
We're defending the American
workers we're using common sense.
We have a situation where we're looking
very strongly at sinks and showers and
other elements of bathrooms when you turn the
faucet on - in areas where there's tremendous amounts
of water where the water rushes out to sea because you could never
handle it - and you don't get any water. 
You turn on the faucet; you don't get any water. 
They take a shower and water comes dripping out.
It's dripping out - very quietly - dripping out.
People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times
as opposed to once they end up using more water.
So the EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion.
You go into a new building or a new house or a 
new home and they have standards.
 "Oh, you don't get water."
 You can't wash your hands, practically, there's so little water
comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave
the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your
hands you end up using the same amount of water
So we're looking at, very seriously, at opening up
the standard and there may be some areas where we'll
go the other route - desert areas. But for the most part
you have many states where they have so much water
that it comes down - it's called rain (laughter) - that
they don't know - they don't know what to do with it.

Alternative Facts

So we're going to be opening that up I believe and we're looking

looking at changing the standards very soon, and that's a

little bit like the lightbulb where you get a bulb that's

better for much less money, We go back - but you

have the other alternative. And you'll keep the

other alternative with sinks and showers et

cetera too that's been a big problem so

a lot of the things we do are based 

on common sense... In so many -

so many of the things we do

it's based on common sense

like the car the car will

end up with that net

tremendous saving environmentally

when you think of all the cars the

old cars that will come off the road

you'll end up with a very - a better

car and you'll end up environment-

ally it will be ultimately much better.

The Update Desk: Amazon's 'Monopoly'

In a Sunday School post last month, I shared Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren's idea that tech companies need to be broken up. Warren's conversation with Ed O'Keefe on Face the Nation started with him asking her why she thought that needed to be done.

Because the giant tech companies right now area eating up little, tiny businesses, startups - and competing unfairly. 

In Warren's mind, platform companies should not be competing with platform users, putting their own products ahead of the competition in search returns, and so on.

So what I'm saying is we've got to break these guys apart. You want to run a platform? That's fine, You don't get to run a whole bunch of the businesses as well. You want to run a business? That's fine. You don't get to run the platform. Think of it this way, it's like in baseball. You can be the umpire or you can own one of the teams, but you don't get to be the umpire and own the teams.

So Facebook would have to sell off Instagram, Amazon would have to sell off Whole Foods, and "all those little businesses that they're running, competing businesses. Yup."

Warren says this can happen under our anti-trust rules that are already in place.

But is this a solution in need of a problem?  Let's take a look.

Quick Takes(v27): When Ivanka Came to Town

Quick Takes

The president's daughter made a stop in Syracuse yesterday, participating in a closed roundtable discussion with our congressman John Katko (NY-24), school district officials, educators and students who participated in the Syracuse City School District's P-Tech program at the Institute of Technology.

For those who are not familiar with P-Tech, students who complete the five-to-six year program end up with a high school diploma, a college degree and job training. Here's some info from the SCSD's website.

Students engage in a wide variety of real-world work experience including visits from industry experts, internships, shadow days, coaching and mentoring, part-time employment...

Students complete a rigorous curriculum in science, technology and math that enables them to meet all the requirements of a high school Regent's diploma... beyond this, accredited college instructions deliver... a course of study that empower students to earn an AAS degree in mechanical engineering...

Ivanka had a chance to credit her father's administration for driving a need for a well-trained workforce.

Now that tax reform has passed and we have deregulated so many industries, the biggest concern is the lack of a skilled workforce.

She also noted her passion for workforce development, and that

There are so many job opportunities, and many of those job opportunities don't require a four year degree. 

In addition to the tax cuts and deregulation, she pointed out her father's efforts in calling for increased spending for and access to STEM, including a presidential memorandum he issued.

...Trump recognizes the importance of expanding high-quality STEM and computer science education, especially for those in historically underserved groups, to better prepare the American workforce for jobs of the future. This Presidential Memorandum directs Secretary of Education DeVos to place high quality STEM education, particularly computer science, at the forefront of the Department of Education's priorities, and in doing so, establish a goal of devoting at least $200 million per year in grant funds towards this priority and explore administrative actions that will add or increase focus on computer science in existing K-12 schools as well as post-secondary education.

The head of the Manufacturers Association of Central New York (MACNY), Randy Wolken, noted that local businesses are struggling finding people to fill available positions.

We have a crisis right now. We don't have enough workers. 

He referenced a five to ten percent vacancy rate at MACNY member companies, on average, and points to that as why employers need to invest in programs like P-Tech. (MACNY is one of the partners in the SCSD program, along with OCC.)

Funding is a key issue for these programs; at ITC, for example, tuition totals $102,000, with additional costs for books ($28K) and transportation ($18K), much of it coming from competitive grants. And that's to cover one year of the program.

Pushing a $200M in grant funding at the federal level falls way short of what's needed to truly build the 'workforce of the future' - which is why Wolken's statement about employers investing in these programs is critical. It's also worth noting that MACNY has lobbied in the past for state government support to create an apprenticeship program, which I talked about in this post from back in 2016.

With the $500,000, if it's added to the state budget, MACNY could run a central apprenticeship program that would reduce costs and administrative red tape for all local manufacturers. Much of the state money would pay for administrative costs involved in running the program.

At that time, I suggested that MACNY member companies, and of course the local labor unions, need to cough up their own money to fund these programs, as they would be the direct beneficiaries of developing the specifically skilled workforce they lament we're missing.

MACNY got the money for the program, and the group is actively encouraging their members to get moving on apprenticeships, which is a very good thing (even though I still think they should have funded it on their own).

But back to today.

We can surely disagree about Ivanka and what value she might bring to the Administration or the country, and we can surely argue about how we should define  "the biggest concern" resulting from the very generous corporate tax code changes and the massive deregulation we've seen during the Trump administration.

But I don't think there's a ton of disagreement that companies have benefited significantly, as was intended, as was promised. And as so many business owners have been so eager to tell us.

So, now more than ever, the same companies that have benefited so greatly from the permanent changes to the corporate tax code should be heavily investing not just in equipment and such, but in ensuring the viability and availability of our workforce.

Competitive grants are fine -- but $200M is not going to go very far given what employers across the country, their lobbyists, and folks like Ivanka Trump are telling us we're up against. And even if there is other federal and/or state money available for these types of programs, we can't afford to ignore a key source of funds.  Now is the time for the folks who got those great (and can I say again, permanent) tax cuts to step up.

Ivanka thanked everyone who attended the discussion, noting

I've learned a lot. I'll take your suggestions back to Washington with me.

I hope she takes away Randy Wolken's message - that employers need to be on the forefront of these efforts, and that she hears my message - that they need to be there with wide open wallets.

Trump in Transition (v27)

Last night, president Trump gave his first State of the Union address.

He let us know that, in his opinion, the state of the union is strong, even as he left unsaid anything about the American carnage he spoke of so ominously just a year ago.

He touched on a lot of stuff in the relatively sniff-free hour and twenty minutes or so, after moving very quickly to the podium, almost as if he couldn't wait to get started so he could get back to the residence to watch the playback on his personal news network.

What did he tell us? The usual suspects: stock market, economy, jobs, unemployment of all kinds - those numbers that he repeatedly declared to be face while on the campaign trail are now truer than true, because he claims them as his own. He spoke of the tax cuts, and tax reform, and the increase in take-home pay we'll be seeing, and of course the corporate tax cuts, sold as a 14% reduction but in reality, barely half that in terms of what most companies actually paid. And of course the bonuses, but not the layoffs and the closings. The American Dream is a dream of dollars, plain and simple, he would have us believe.

In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life. Our motto is "In God we trust."

Some of us are old-school and remember the motto that came from our founding fathers: E Pluribus Unum, the one that includes all of us and binds us to each other in a way that IGWT does not. Like I said - old school.

He told us about the "bonds of trust" between the people and their government, including deregulation, new judges and support for the Second Amendment and "historic actions" to protect religious freedom, even if it steps on the rights of other Americans to participate freely in society, within the confines of our laws and regulations.

All Americans deserve accountability and respect -- and that is what we are giving them. So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers - and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.

Yep - that's what he said. Cabinet Secretaries, prepare to mobilize to remove those who fail the people president...

He talked about energy and trade of course - and about lower drug prices and coverage for clinical trials for the terminally ill, but did not talk about how these would be paid for or by whom.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need. Every federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with state and local governments and where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment - to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit. 

There is no question we need to do a ton of work on infrastructure - and there's no question that this will require foreign private sector investment - lots of it; how the administration will handle that remains to be seen. Just as a for instance, are we going to be in the position of having a foreign country control one of our airports?

He called for a massive military buildup - "unmatched power" is how he described it, and we can see

He called for moving from "welfare to work, from dependence to independence, and from poverty to prosperity." We should all agree on that, for everyone - just not sure how Congress is going to make it work. Drug testing, probably. That's the answer to everything, right?

Gangs, gangs, gangs - gangs were all over the speech. Well, MS-13. Not the rest of them. Immigrants committing crimes, or acts of terrorism committed by 'chain' immigrants. He spoke of his four pillars for immigration which include a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegals, border security, ending the visa lottery and chain migration and moving to a merit based system, which will bring in skilled workers only. And fighting opioids, although the administration has been slow to provide any significant funding for this effort.

Guantanamo will remain open, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we're moving our embassy there, there rest of the world be damned. Trump claimed that the move was "unanimously endorsed by the Senate" just months before, ignoring the other part that was, in the same bill, unanimously endorsed: that the Senate

reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States Government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution.

And then, this, after talking about the UN resolution which condemned us for our interference in the two-state solution:

That is why, tonight, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to help ensure America foreign-assistance dollars always serve American interests, and only go to America's friends.

Like many people - most, probably - I have no idea exactly what that means - but we are already withholding $65M of aid passed through the UN Relief and Welfare Agency to Palestinians. Who might be next? And how is 'friendship' defined, and by whom?

After a long discussion about the horrors of North Korea, he closed by talking about monuments to our heroes, and to freedom, including the Capital building as a monument to us.

Americans fill the world with art and music. They push the bounds of science and discovery. And they forever remind us of what we should never forget: the people dreamed this country. The people built this country. And it is the people who are making America great again. 

As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens and trust in our God, we will not fail.  

Our families will thrive. Our people will prosper. And our nation will forever be safe and strong and proud and mighty and free.

The blended poll of Trump's approval today?  39.5% approve, 54.9% disapprove.

I Hereby Proclaim: November 2017

Like his predecessors, president Trump has a penchant for proclamations. I last looked at some of them he made in June, and thought it was time to drop in and take another look.

Here are a few of the ones relating to the month of November.

It's National Entrepreneurship Month!

National Entrepreneurship Month celebrates one of our Nation's proudest qualities: our innovative, hardworking, entrepreneurial spirit. American entrepreneurs invent and sell fascinating and endlessly useful new products and services, creating millions of jobs and driving American global leadership along the way.... we must ensure that entrepreneurs have access to the capital, markets, and networks they need to get off the ground, to finance and build helpful innovations, and to export their products and services around the world. My Administration will continue its work to eliminate unnecessary, burdensome regulations and to fight for a simpler, fairer tax code that eases the burdens on doing business and enhances access to capital... this month, I call upon Americans to recognize the entrepreneurs who strengthen our economy, drive creativity, and increase the vibrancy of our great Nation.

We should absolutely celebrate entrepreneurs, ensure they have access to capital, and do something about our problematic regulatory environment that at times makes it hard for businesses large and small to function well. Although, next month, when it's expected that net neutrality will be wiped out, it might get more difficult for many of our small businesses to function. But heck, forcing service providers to allow everyone equal access to the internet? That's just not vibrant.

Similarly, November is Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Month!

During Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Month, we emphasize the importance of safeguarding our Nation's infrastructure. Critical infrastructure systems are those physical and virtual assets that are essential to our physical security, economic security, or public health.  We need resilient, well-maintained critical infrastructure so that all Americans have access to safe food, reliable electricity, clean water, convenient transportation systems, quality public health and medical services, and instant communication every day... Our critical infrastructure also faces threats from capacity-induced strain, terrorist attacks, accidents, pandemics, space weather, and cyber attacks... My Administration will help our businesses invest in needed capital and research and development by reducing burdensome regulations and enacting comprehensive tax reform.

Except, of course, for having a freely accessible internet. But having ready access to capital, no burdensome regulations, and comprehensive tax reform will help secure our infrastructure. Or something.

And, November is National Native American Heritage Month!

My Administration is committed to tribal sovereignty and self-determination. A great Nation keeps its word, and this Administration will continue to uphold and defend its responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The United States is stronger when Indian Country is health and prosperous. As part of our efforts to strengthen American Indian and Alaska Native communities, my Administration is reviewing regulations that may impose unnecessary costs and burdens This aggressive regulatory reform, and a focus on government-to-government consultation, will help revitalize our Nation's commitment to Indian Country.

Dakota Access pipeline, anyone?  Removing national monuments that protect Native heritage sites? Denying climate science? Abandoning environmental protections?  Let's do more to revitalize our commitment to 'Indian Country' -- or, are all of these things happening outside Indian Country? And where or what exactly is 'Indian Country' anyway?

I hope you celebrated November 13 through November 19, 2017 as National Apprenticeship Week.

During National Apprenticeship Week, we recognize the important role apprenticeships play in unleashing the American workforce... our Nation can renew one of our greatest assets - the American worker.

My Administration has taken important steps to promote and expand apprenticeships. The Department of Labor is fully implementing my Executive Order on Expanding Apprenticeships in America, which direct it to work with other Federal Departments and agencies to make it easier for companies to create and grow apprenticeship programs...

This week, I challenge businesses, educational institutions, and government entities to expand apprenticeship opportunities and other quality job-training programs to help open more doors for more Americans... Together, we will build an even stronger workforce and provide new and exciting opportunities for generations of Americans to learn, earn and succeed. 

I'm a big fan of these programs, and a bigger fan of companies starting them on their own, without burdensome regulations directing multiple governmental departments and agencies to make it happen. Creative, innovative companies who need skilled people are free to collaborate with high schools, BOCES and similar programs, technical colleges, state universities, unions - to develop the kind of programs that will help create the workforce we need. We shouldn't have to encourage them to make this investment in their future.

At almost the same time, we were celebrating November 12 through 18, 2017 as American Education Week.

During American Education Week, we recognize that the foundation of the American Dream is a quality education that instills lifelong skills and develops strong character... As parents, teachers, and advocates, we recommit to ensuring that all children in American have a meaningful opportunity to harness their full potential...  Parents and guardians are the best advocates for their children's success. Through engagement with teachers and local school boards, parents have the power to shape their children's education. The importance of family and community involvement is why I signed an Executive Order earlier this year to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, administration, and personnel of our country's schools... By promoting lifelong learning and continuing to ensure relevant post secondary education is more accessible to students, we can help all Americans achieve their dreams... There can be no greater investment than into the success of our children.

There's a lot to unpack in there, as they say, but I'll only say this: complete local control over curriculum will not help ensure the success of our children, it will create a giant, unwieldy patchwork quilt of regulations which might actually hinder our children and the efforts at getting a relevant post secondary education. So I guess it's good that the federal government is helping to develop apprenticeship programs -- we're going to need them if the Department of Education is successful with its reforms.

Grains of Salt (v22): All Hail Ride-Hailing

Just after midnight, Uber and Lyft become legal in our neck of the woods here in Central NY, across Upstate, and on Long Island.

Long a staple in New York City, it wasn't until this most recent legislative session that our State Legislators figured out a way to make it happen, and even then, they had to reduce the normal 90-day effective date to 80 days so that the services could be available for the Independence Day weekend.

A year ago this week, I published a post raising some concerns beyond the ones that had been raised by politicians and the editorial board of the paper. While many of them were concerned about things like background checks, past issues with the drivers (contractors of, not employed by the ride-sharing services), lack of accessibility for the disabled, and so on, I questioned how this would impact the existing infrastructure of taxi drivers, who are heavily regulated under the Syracuse Municipal Code.

Furthermore, Syracuse has regulated rates, from the drop charge (the initial charge that's on the meter before the taxi pulls away from the curb, currently $2.80), the per-mile price (currently $2.50), and, for airport taxis, the flat rate zone price to get from Hancock International Airport to downtown, the University, to my house here in The Valley, or anywhere else.

And, don't forget the licensing fees, renewal fees, and the limitation on the number of ground transportation licenses that can be issued in the city, currently 200 plus whatever is needed for the airport. 

Would all of the current rules and regs that apply to taxis apply to ride-hailing companies? Would the number of licenses be expanded to accommodate an unknown number of entrepreneurs, those jobs the mayor and others are looking forward to? Would the same rates, metering and other rules apply?

Last night, I checked the codes for taxis and, to no real surprise, found no changes to the regulations. Syracuse is still limited to 200 taxis outside the airport service; there are still specific fees for mileage, wait time and the meter drop charge; all of the licensing and other requirements are also still in place.

The local news was all over the new service, including letting us know that Lyft (but not yet Uber) had signed a deal with the airport to provide services, giving people a choice between the unregulated entrepreneur and the regulated existing business. And, we learned that thousands of people have signed up to be Uber drivers (Lyft has not disclosed their numbers).

In January, Uber announced that 50,000 people in Upstate New York had gone through initial steps of becoming drivers, and 10,000 of them were in Syracuse.

Pretend even a fraction of them make themselves available for pickup on Thursday -- there'll be cars everywhere!

Fares have not yet been announced, that I can find. I tried an Uber rate estimator, to get from my house to the airport, but came up empty. However, I was assured on the website that even with a 20% tip, the fare should be cheaper than calling a cab.  We'll see if that's true with the taxes that's being added on - a 4% assessment fee which goes to NY's general fund, and a 2.5% surcharge to cover workers comp insurance for the driver.

But from what I did read, there will be a similar structure as that for taxis - as noted in the link above on tipping, which looks to b boilerplate language with dropped in city names.

There is a base fare, a charge per mile and a charge per minute. It looks like the pricing structure you know well from all the miles you have logged in Syracuse,NY cabs. But Uber Fare Estimator actually uses a bit different pricing model. Uber taxis in Syracuse, NY charge riders per mile when moving, and per minute when idling. Even so, Uber rates do beat cab fares in Syracuse, NY.

In addition to regulatory differences and pricing differences, there's also a potential concern about coverage. For example, it was reported that some taxi drivers are dropping out of those ranks to become hailed ride drivers because they didn't like being dispatched to certain parts of town.  Said one driver (who may not fully understand how the new service works)

(Driving a taxi) was dangerous because sometimes the dispatcher would send us to like the real bad neighborhoods. The dispatcher would just throw you in there, to the wolves. With Uber, I will decline it if they send me to a bad neighborhood.

On the plus side, there are discussions underway with Centro, our public transportation service, to see if there are ways to serve populations of the city that rely on public transportation the most - low income folks - who are currently underserved in some locations and at particular times of day.

Much more to come on this as things move along; time will tell whether ride-sharing will take off here as it has in other areas. I hope that if it does, it's not because we failed to make it as easy for existing businesses to be successful as we're trying to make it for the new model to work, and that we end up with more accessible service to all residents, not less.

Low Expectations, Met?

Well, what did you think of the premiere of Low Expectations?

Yep, I'm talking about The Donald's speech last night to a joint session of Congress. You know, the one where everyone was impressed that he stayed on message, didn't deviate from the teleprompter, made chest-thumping motions, brought some guests for people to acknowledge, and pointed at people in the crowd.

He did all of the things that politicians are supposed to do when they talk to the American people and to our elected representatives in Congress.

And yet, we couldn't stop talking about the low expectations, as if, because he's Trump, we shouldn't ask too much from him. When will it be time for us to ask of him what we ask of anyone else?

Much of what I've heard today from the Right is a sigh of relief that he was able to deliver the message without blowing it, that he looked presidential, which, coming from his own party is a pretty weak endorsement. Except for Chris Wallace, who thought it was the greatest speech since President Sliced Bread made a sandwich. And there were of course happy thoughts from the mainstream Republicans, but not so much from the most conservative folks, the Freedom Caucus,who are expected to be unhappy with Trump's free-spending proposals and generosity.

On the other side of the aisle, there was serious doubt that this was any kind of pivot, that Trump was doing anything other than pay lip service to ideas that all American could rally around, his calls for us to dream big together notwithstanding. More people opposed him than supported him, we remember, even if he doesn't - so there is no earthquake of a mandate. He continued to strike a protectionist, nationalist pose, and avowed he was not the leader of the free world, he was just President of the United States.

While he signaled earlier yesterday, before the speech, a potential softening on immigration, none of that came out last night. Softening doesn't seem to be in the picture with his new branch of Homeland Security, called VOICE, designed to serve a minuscule population of Americans: those who are Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement.  At that point, we were reminded of the existence of the Steves, Bannon and Miller, and their closeness to the President.

Only in their America, in Donald Trump's America, can we say that a person who is robbed by an illegal immigrant is more worthy of our attention and support than, say, someone who lost their child at at the hands of an American terrorist at a Connecticut elementary school, or whose teenager was victimized by a terrorist American priest, or whose husband was killed at a by an American racist bastard at an AME church prayer meeting in South Carolina, or by an American terrorist at a movie Colorado movie theater, or whose husband or child died at the hands of a police officer, or in a drive-by shooting, or any other way in which any number of Americans who were Victims of American Crime Engagement. Only in their America.

He continued, suggesting that, in nine years,

when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American Greatness began.

He had also suggested, earlier in the speech, that

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty, and justice -- in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present. That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world.

Let's remind ourselves of how we will light up the world with the torch of truth, liberty and justice. We'll do that, he told us, by

• exercising our crucial demand, that America put itself first; 
• by deregulating American businesses, blessing us with untold miracles
• by building a wall, a great wall
• by cutting taxes on American businesses
• implementing merit-based immigration
• spending $1,000,000,000 on infrastructure
• #BAHA - buying American, Hiring American
• reducing the number of people covered by health insurance plans, but providing greater access to health care plans
• promoting clean air and water (but not necessarily having either)
• investing in women's health (I truly can't type that with a straight face)
• rebuilding our military ($54 billion in, $54 billion out of everything else)
• diverting taxpayer dollars to pay for private schools, religious schools, or home schools for disadvantaged youth, even black and brown ones

We will light up the world with the torch of truth,liberty, and justice. Honest, we will.