Tuesday's Number: $36,023

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week, there were

·         five new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers, totaling $36,023

·         no satisfied judgments and

·         no bankruptcies.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

·         Crouse had three, totaling $21,341

·         St Joe’s had one, totaling $7,861

·         SUNY Upstate got the last, for $6,821

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

The Update Desk 10/21/15: Joe, Paul, and Dough

Back on September 13th, I suggested that Joe Biden shouldn't run for President. Today, he agreed with me.

In a brief Rose Garden speech, Biden conceded that it was now simply too late for him to mount a realistic campaign, as his family's grieving process took the time that Biden would have otherwise spend building a campaign structure, raising money, and getting everyone's skin thickened up for the inevitable landslide of attention, both good and bad.

I'm glad he's out - and I appreciate his intention to not sit idly by, but to speak out on issues as his term as Vice President winds down.

While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. 

He might not be in the race, but at this point I'll take help from anyone who can help shape the debate.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has decided to put his hat into the ring to be Speaker of the House, a job he does not want, does not need, and won't take unless the entire Republican contingent in the House agrees to his terms.

Which is kind of funny, when you think about it, given that Crying John Boehner is out and the heir apparent Kevin McCarthy is out because they did not agree to the terms of the alleged Freedom Caucus, a group of some 40 hard line conservatives who are trying to shift the House to, oh, I don't know -- what's further right than the Pacific Ocean?

One of his big 'requests' is that he needs more time with his family, including his three young children. The Speaker historically has spent a lot of time criss-crossing the country raising money for the party and House members, something which Ryan will not do in the traditional way, should he be selected for the leadership role.

At least in that regard, he has something in common with Biden.

And now for that guy Dough. In my post Big Money in Little Politics earlier this week, I shared some info from a NY Times article on a relative handful of folks, some 158 families, who (through June 30th) had given $176,000,000 to candidates or their super PACs, and lamented, as I have before, the role that money plays in taking folks like you and me out of the political game.

That little $176M is a mere drop in the bucket, folks.  According to OpenSecrets.org, there are huge sums of money going to candidates in the 2016 cycle.

As of October 21, 2015, 1,207 groups organized as super PACS have reported total receipts of $303,520,383. 

Here's just a sampling:

• Right to Rise USA (Jeb Bush): $103,167845
• Unintimidated PAC (Scott Walker): $20,022,405
• Conservative Solutions PAC (Marco Rubio): $16,057,755
• Priorities USA Action (Hillary Clinton):$15,654,457
• Keep the Promise III (Ted Cruz): $15,000,000
• Keep the Promise I (Cruz): $11,007,096
• America Leads (Chris Christie): $11,003,304
• Keep the Promise II (Cruz): $10,000,000
• Opportunity and Freedom I (Rick Perry):$10,000,000

$303,520,383. So far. And that's just this bucket of contribution, it's not all of it.

It's kind of fun to note how much money has gone to folks who are either doing poorly (Bush, Rubio, Christie and even Cruz) or are out of the picture completely (Walker, Perry).

What's that saying about a fool and his money? 

Tuesday's Number: $652,103

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week, there were

·         31 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers, totaling $490,576

·         one satisfied judgment, for $12,543 and

·         three bankruptcies, for $174,070.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

·         Crouse had twelve, totaling $102,413

·         St Joe’s had six, totaling $49,147 (including credit for the satisfied judgment)

·         SUNY Upstate added another fourteen, for $319,801, and

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, added one, for $123,631.

This week brought us only the fifth filing of the year for Community General, the other four having come in the first quarter.  A rehab center ($50,810) and a medical group ($6,301) make up the difference between the overall and hospital totals. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Big Money in Little Politics

veritable pastiche photo

Think of the last holiday party, class reunion (or even a family reunion), or offsite (business meeting) you attended. Think about the hotel conference rooms or banquet rooms you've been in, and try to picture what a room full of 150 or so people looks like.

Now that you've got that picture in mind, picture this: according to a story in the New York Times a week or so ago, 158 families, along with their companies, have donated over $176 million dollars  -  just through the end of June  -  to presidential candidates.

That's an awful lot of money, for what's really a small pool of beneficiaries - the two dozen or so folks who are running for president.

One hundred fifty eight families. One hundred seventy six million dollars.

Almost half of all of the money contributed to the candidates through June 30th came from just a few more people than attended the average wedding last year. Eight families from the same elite Houston neighborhood donated $7,780,000.  I wonder whether the ones that only coughed up $250,000 feel overshadowed by their neighbors, three of whom have already given $2M each?

One fracking-rich family in Texas ($15M) and a NYC family, hedge-fund rich ($11M), gave $26M in support of  Ted Cruz, currently in fifth place. Another family gave $5M to Scott Walker, who is now on the sidelines. And yet, they're hugely successful in business - heck, they've probably already made enough to cover these bets.

Does this much money, this early, from so few, bother you?  Is this what you consider a 'representative democracy' or is this something else entirely? Is this 'freedom of speech' or is it trying to buy an election? How can any candidate pretend that there is not something in it for these huge donors?

I'm sure the folks who want to be president are all like New York's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo, who sleeps well at night knowing that he's pure of thought and deed and can't be bought. But, as I noted back in 2014, this kind of money buys something, or else it wouldn't be donated.

The little people -- me and everyone I know, for example --  cannot compete with the likes of a Russian-born billionaire who became an American citizen two years after I got out of high school with close to $2M to burn trying to influence the presidential election, or a Hollywood studio magnate or a Northern California tech mogul, or sports team owners (including the Walker supporters mentioned above), whether their money is going to Republicans (138 of the families) or Democrats (the remaining 20).

We can't compete with these folks, and we shouldn't have to. Rather than pricing you and me out of the market, however, we should have priced them out of the market.

A listing of the families, and their contributions, is here. 

Tuesday's Number: $372,440

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week, there were
·         27 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $377,676

·         two satisfied judgments for $16,817

·         one bankruptcy, for $11,581

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:
·         Crouse had four, totaling $18,542, including a credit of $7,636

·         St Joe’s also had four, totaling $44,574

·         SUNY Upstate added twenty-two, for $309,144, which includes a $9,181 credit

As always, when there are any, I apply the satisfied judgments to the hospital totals. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Grains of Salt (v2): This Does Not Compute

A little bit of this and that, from Syracuse and Central New York.

Back in July, the administration of Syracuse mayor Stephanie Miner blocked the Common Council from using the city's computer systems, because the Councilors did not sign the city's new computer use and access policy.

Is anyone surprised that they're still fighting about this?

The policy, which seems similar to the one that many of us who work in the business world sign, is designed to 'encourage' good computer use, discourage personal use of taxpayer assets, and help ensure that the systems are safe from malicious activity.  For example, it discusses hot-button issues such as:

• preapproval of software and hardware used on the system
• protection of trade secrets
• limited confidentiality (administrators can access what you do)
• FOIL and legal discoverability
• passwords are not to be shared and need to be changed regularly
• non-usage rules (porn, love letters, political campaigns, games, solicitations, streaming websites and the like)
• access, including only accessing what you're supposed to
• safeguarding the equipment
• an anti-retaliation provision

While the policy had been in place since 2013, this year was the first time that folks were asked to formally sign and agree to the policy. They had two months to take the momentous step or face the consequences.

One of the issues with the policy, from the Common Councilor's side, is that it doesn't include any provisions for elected officials - everyone is considered an employee, and subject to the same rules, requirements, and oversight.  And that last word -- oversight --is the one that really has everyone up in arms. Here's what the policy says:

Please be aware that City computer, device, and system activity, including but not limited to files accessed, email, and Internet activity may be monitored at any time.  All personnel are advised that the City possesses and may utilize at any time, activity monitoring software capable of capturing keystrokes and screen shots of a member's computer, device, and system activity. Activity reports may be furnished to the user's Department head. 

What this all means, from the Council's perspective (and the City Clerk's perspective, as he's also a non-signer) is that Mayor Miner can have the city's taxpayer-supported IT Department spy on the taxpayer-elected representatives, preventing them from being able to have confidential conversations with city employees, constituents, attorneys, and the like, or that she will make life miserable for them in some other way, shape or form because - well, because she can.

And so since July when many Councilors refused to sign, we've been watching the legal tab run up while they tried to get things worked out. In September, six of the Councilors announced that they were going to pursue a second lawsuit against the city (the first having been thrown out on a technicality) and are authorizing up to $25,000 on top of the "thousands" they've already spent, and on top of the $7K or so that the City has already spent.

That lawsuit was approved by a 5-4 vote.

Folks, this is ridiculous.

Lots of people chomp at the bit when asked to sign policies like this. But for everyone to have their panties in a knot at the thought that the City can fire Common Councilors who misbehave or misuse city assets is nuts.  Stephanie Miner must know she can't do that. The Councilors know she can't do that. Taxpayers know she can't do that.

Equally, everyone knows that the relationship between Miner's administration and the Council -- heck, with lots of people -- has not always been the best. I have friends who I likely can't even pay to say anything good about her -- so it's also understandable that the Council would want some separation between the two sides, and I agree their should be separation.

Even given that, the fact that they can't get out of each other's way to solve this, after several months, is silly.

More importantly, the inability of the two sides to negotiate something as seemingly simple as this does not bode well for their ability to lead us forward. One possible solution would be to have the City Auditor own monitoring the IT policy as it applies to the Council and any other elected officials, and issue an independent report to taxpayers annually(or as issues arise). To me, that makes more sense than the Council investing you guessed it - taxpayer dollars -- to 'Clintonize' the situation and get their own server. There are likely lots of other ideas out there, if anyone was interested.

All politics is local, they say - and if this is the example our local leaders set, it's no wonder people choose not to vote. If we want that to change, we need situations like this to change. It's time for everyone to get over themselves, solve this problem, and get back to work.

Is There a Speaker in the House?

Great balcony. Wonderful guests. But that's not enough, it seems, to get a Speaker.  

www.ethioscoop.com 

Crying John Boehner doesn't want the job anymore; he announced that right after he hosted Pope Francis on the balcony.

Kevin McCarthy doesn't want the job anymore. McCarthy was next to Boehner, not crying at the time but almost certainly doing that now, especially after his confession about the Benghazi committee being a 'defeat Hillary' plot, and allegations of an extra-marital affair with a fellow Representative.

Paul Ryan is the front-runner for a job he doesn't want. He'd much rather be Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, which is probably a more important role than Speaker of the House, even though the office is less ostentatious. 

Actually, the only people so far who want to be Speaker are the ones who likely can't get enough votes to actually win the job -- and they're also the ones behind Boehner stepping down in the first place. 

Members of the Freedom Caucus, the 40-odd rightest of the right wing, have created a questionnaire for potential Speaker candidates, and that might be the reason why people don't want to play. Among the issues addressed in the questionnaire:

• making sure that conservatives have appropriate representation on House committees and some changes to House rules allowing for more transparency
• ensuring that conservative members are not retaliated against - stripped of committee spots, for example - if they don't toe the line 
• ensuring that amendments put forth by the conservatives are accommodated (even though they will almost certainly doom legislation)
• supporting another vote to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act by the end of 2015
• putting forth budget bills which include 'structural entitlement reform' and which defund Planned Parenthood, the ACA, immigration amnesty, and the Iran nuclear treaty
• impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen
• support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which allows the federal government to be sued for damages if a person (and by that I mean person, corporation, not for profit organization church or any other entity that can hold a personal belief) if said person believes they were discriminated against because of the opposition to marriage equality

While some of what they're asking about seems reasonable - committee representation, transparency, and the like -- what they're also asking for is the Speaker to relinquish power, commit to unpassable legislation, refuse to engage with the other side of the aisle, and so on. In effect, they want a Speaker who listens only to them.  

Is it any wonder no one wants the job?

Right Meme, Left Meme, Gun Meme

As is typically the case, when we have a mass shooting such as the one last week in Roseburg, the memes make their way onto social media sites.  Left meme, right meme, left meme, right meme, marching across our Facebook and Twitter feeds, collecting likes and dislikes, upwardly pointing thumbs and middle fingers held just as high.

Yeah, we can't have an actual conversation but we sure can meme!

Here are a few I've seen in the past couple of days.

This one's absolutely correct - making drugs illegal did not stop everyone from doing them. But it did give us the opportunity to get lots of drug dealers off the streets, and lots of meth labs out of our back yards.

Laws against drunken driving don't keep every idiot from getting behind the wheel when they're impaired either - but it has helped, as have speed limits and seat belt laws and a whole bunch of other laws that are not obeyed by every single American - only by most of them. Does that mean that we shouldn't try?

There was also this one. I never met God in any school I attended, and I suspect most people who didn't attend some kind of religiously-affiliated school didn't run into God in their school either.

Sure, we said the Pledge of Allegiance (which only added "under God" in the 1950s, in response to the scourge of Communism, by the way), but we did not collectively pray or practice religion in any other way. Nothing stopped anyone back then, or anyone today, from having a silent prayerful moment of their own.

I recall the Catholic kids leaving early, I think it was Thursday, for religious ed, and us heathens -- the Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians and the rest -- stayed behind and played King Chase Queen with erasers on our heads and stuff like that. But even then, God wasn't in the school, I think He was down the street at St. Pat's.

Besides, doesn't God only give you what He thinks you can bear? So, whether He was in the schools or not, would He have stopped any of these mass shootings, or would they still have happened under the theory that our faith needs to be tested, and strengthened, in the face of terrible tragedy?

And then there's this meme, posted by many, including former Minnesota Congresswoman and permanent RWNJ Michele Bachmann.

Because we all know that the only reason why people shoot up schools is because they are 'gun free zones' right?  Or churches, not a lot of guns there or even in movie theaters. Yeah, when the angry people, the grudge-holders, the racists, the whatever-you-want-to-call-them are looking to shoot someplace up, they specifically read the signs in the windows looking for one that's a gun-free zone.

Stop it.

You know why they choose schools? It's because they're students there, or recently were; it's because they know the lay of the land, where the exits are, where the people they don't like are, what classes the teacher they hate will be in, and, more importantly, it's because they know they'll get the attention they seek if that's where they commit their heinous crimes, compared to, say, shooting up a Walmart.

But, by far, my favorite gun meme is this one:

Tuesday's Number: $210,382

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week, there were

• nine new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $194,480,
• no satisfied judgments, and
• one bankruptcy, for $15,902.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

• Crouse had four, totaling $31,439
• St Joe's had one, for $15,902
• SUNY had four, for $38,688

A local rehab facility had the last filing, making up the $124,353 difference.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Nine Dead in Oregon

Sing it, and it sounds just like Ohio, the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young anti-war anthem about the murder of four students by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University 35 years ago.

Nine dead in Oregon (nine dead) Nine dead in Oregon (nine) Nine dead in Oregon (how many?) Nine dead in Oregon (how many more?) Nine dead in Oregon (why?)

This time, it was a lone gunman - lone and lonely, it seems - killing eight of his fellow students and a teacher at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg. And so we add another town to the lore and legend of mass shootings in the US.

Supposedly there's some kind of manifesto, and allegedly the killer was asking people if they were Christian before deciding where to shoot them, which may have cost some their lives and saved others. Nothing's been said yet about motive, or about the shooter's religion; those details will come later, I'm sure, once law enforcement officials review everything. We can be sure, though, that the shooter's mental health will be an issue.

This was the 294th mass shooting in the US this year. The definition is met, according to the folks at Mass Shooting Tracker,

when four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period.

The 294th. This year.

Being the overachievers we are, we're ahead of schedule: in 2013, number 294 didn't occur until 10/18; last year, it  took until 11/19. If you're curious, here are some additional numbers tied to the 294th mass shooting for each year:

• 2015: 375 killed, 1089 injured, total 1464
• 2014: 326 killed, 1096 injured, total 1422
• 2013: 382 killed, 1042 injured, total 1424 

Yay, us. 

Tuesday's Number Quarterly Recap

This past Tuesday’s Number brought us to the end of the third quarter, so it’s time to take a look at our progress.

I'm a little later with this post than I said I would be, and than I had hoped to be, but we were on vacation and it was hard to focus on writing after spending long days surrounded by the beauty that blankets New York's Adirondack Mountains during peak foliage season. If you ever have the opportunity to visit at this time of year, I highly recommend it. 

Here are the totals for the quarter: 

• Judgments:$3,660,766, up $370,314 
• Satisfied judgments: $ 174,727, up $66,858 
• Bankruptcies: $311,948, down $9,713 
• Grand total: $3,797,987, up from $293,743

And the year to date numbers:

• Judgments: $12,132,206 
• Satisfied judgments: $443,104 
• Bankruptcies: $1,094,508

How does this quarter compare to the 2nd quarter?

• Total filings were up, but only by 19.  Judgments were up 22 and satisfied judgments were also up, by five; bankruptcies were down by eight.  
• Satisfied judgments and bankruptcies are going in the right direction – judgments, not so much. 
• Satisfied judgment dollars were higher this quarter than any time since Q4 2014, which is a good sign. Bankruptcies continue to trend lower, which is also a good sign.

I would have preferred to see an improvement in all three buckets this quarter, but I’ll take two out of three.  What does make me feel a little better about the direction we’re going is how this year compares to last year; it’s a measure of success in the retail and food industries, and it gives us a good look here as well:

• Judgment dollars are down by 45%
• Satisfied judgment dollars are up by 51%
• Bankruptcy dollars are down by 28%
• Total filing dollars are down by 47%
• Total filings are down by a third.

Is the improvement because of the Affordable Care Act and more people having insurance?  A result of the the improved economy? Simply because people are being more responsible? We may never know for sure - but these are good signs for our community and for the hospitals and medical professionals that provide us with care, and jobs.

I'll continue to be optimistic as we go into the last quarter.

Tuesday's Number: $163,029

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week, there were

·         twelve new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $178,933;

·         two satisfied judgments, for $15,904, and

·         no bankruptcies.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

·         Crouse had five, totaling $48,153

·         St Joe’s had five, for $52,204 (including credit for both judgments), and

·         SUNY Upstate added another three, totaling $46,759

A local rehabilitation center made up the $15,913 difference. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

My Apologies

Regular readers may have noticed that I've not been posting frequently these past couple of weeks.

It's not because I don't care about His Hairness any more. It's not because I stopped being concerned about Hillary's baggage, or about Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and all the rest of them. I certainly am interested in the papal visit, and of course now we understand why Crying John Boehner was blubbering so much when he was with Pope Francis.

There's a new TV season starting, and that's always fun to talk about; and that pesky Kim Davis, well, she's still milking her 15 minutes of fame, as are so many others.

All of that going on, and I've not been posting?

Yep.  Because, while that's been going on, I've been focusing on today, September 26, 2015.  Because today is the day I marry My Sweet Baboo.

We met on a winery bus tour thirteen years ago next month, and we've been together ever since.  And finally, thousands of laughs and significantly fewer tears later, we're getting married.

I'll start posting again in the next few days, and I'm sure there'll be lots of fun stuff to catch up on.  But today, it's all about that dress, and those flowers, and our families and friends, and great food and perfect weather and hearts filled with love and joy.

See you soon.

Tuesday's Number: $165,321

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

Things settled down a little this week: 

• There were nine new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $145,456.
• There were no satisfied judgments.
• And there was one bankruptcy, for $19,865.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital: 

• Crouse had two, totaling $20,769
• St Joe’s had two, for$26,472
• SUNY Upstate added another five, totaling $106,729

A local home health care services provider added the last filing, for $11,351. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Tuesday's Number: $700,759

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

This week brought us the largest number of filings and the third highest dollar total of the year, topped only by week one and week nine, both of which were over $1,000,000. 

• This week, there were 41 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $700,759.
• There were no satisfied judgments.
• And there were no bankruptcies. 

Here’s the breakdown by hospital: 

• Crouse had ten, totaling $90,670
• St Joe’s had three, for $21,069
• SUNY Upstate added 27, totaling $568,268 

One of the North Country medical centers accounted for the final filling, $20.762. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Just Say No, Joe

wired.com 

I'm a fan of Joe Biden, generally. I like his down to earth qualities, his ability to really connect with people, his passion, and his human streak, the one that causes (or allows) him to drop the occasional gaffe here and there, just like I do.

We here in the Central New York area have a special connection to him, as his first wife's family is from the area, and he went to SU's Law School, as did his beloved son Beau, who died earlier this year.  Joe Biden is our vice-president, not just the vice president.

When Beau Biden passed away, we all fell the loss. So young, so much promise, and yet one more tragedy for his father to bear. It was painful to see that loss etched on Joe's face, and to hear it in his voice, to see it in his physical countenance. And for any parent, having to bury a child must seem a fate almost worse than death itself.

That sadness obviously lingers, as the vice president goes through his "should I run or should I not?" process in public, right in front of us. Here's a comment from his interview with Stephen Colbert the other night.

Nobody has a right in my view to seek that office unless they're willing to give it 110% of who they are. And I am -- as I said I'm optimistic, I'm positive about where we're going - but I find myself - you understand, it, sometimes it just overwhelms you.

Earlier, he noted

I can't look you straight in the eye now and say I know I can do it. The most relevant factor in my decision is whether my family and I have the emotional energy to run. The factor is, can I do it?  The honest to God answer is I just don't know.

And yet, speaking at a community college in Florida, in a statement that made it seem like he might actually get in the race, he reminded us that

People who aren't willing to risk failing never succeed. 

Beyond the personal issues, he's contemplating going up against the Clinton Machine, and the money, and the full wrath and fury that will come to anyone who seriously challenges her as the campaign goes on. She's playing softball now, with Bernie Sanders, and ignoring Marty O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee altogether (as is just about everyone else). But when push comes to shove, this kinder, gentler, softer haired Hillary will go by the wayside - it's only a matter of time.

Biden, not even in the race, is polling very well. But great polling numbers aside, I think it's too late and the public agonizing, while honest and transparent, would end up hurting, not helping him. Sadly, in this day and age, any political operative (from either party) who failed to turn some of those musings into anti-Joe soundbites would surely lose their job.

And, I think his entering the race would have been more meaningful and successful with Beau as trusted adviser, closest confidant, head cheerleader, and political compass than it would with Beau as the one who, by his absence, looms larger than life over his dad's shoulder.

I feel for Joe Biden and for his desire to continue serving after his term as VP is over, but I feel for him more as a grieving father than as a politician.  His grandchildren will need him, just as his children needed their grandparents after their mom and sister were killed in that horrible car accident all those years ago.  I want him to be there for them, as he was able to be there for his own kids, commuting from Delaware to DC, early in his career. That's simply not going to be possible if he's on the campaign trail, crisscrossing the country.

Please, Joe - be selfish, for yourself and your family. Just say no.

Tuesday's Number: $274,978

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

This week, there were:

• ten new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers, totaling $165,585; 
• two satisfied judgments, totaling $14,644;
• and two bankruptcies, adding another $124,037. 

Here’s the breakdown by hospital: 

• Crouse had three, with a net of $1,297.
• SUNY Upstate had eleven, totaling $273,681.
• St Joe’s and Community had none. 

When there are any, I subtract the repayments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals, under the likelihood that they’ve already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now. This week, Crouse was the beneficiary of both repayments. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

The Sixth and First vs. the Second

In yesterday's post, I explained the real reason Kim Davis is in jail.

Among those who believe, erroneously, that  Davis is being persecuted for her religious views, for being a Christian, are some of the Republican presidential candidates. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have clearly come out on that side of the equation, as I noted yesterday. But where do the rest of the Rs stand on this?

Well, here's a sampling.

Front runner Donald Trump thinks that others in the Rowan County Clerk's office should be able to issue the licenses, or that frankly, people should leave town and get one somewhere else.

I would say the simple answer is to let her clerks do it. Now from what I understand, she's not letting the clerks do it either.  The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation - 30 miles away they have other places they have many other places you get licenses. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative. 

He's half right - others in her office should be able to issue the marriage licenses, and in fact began doing so last week.  However, his suggestion that citizens cannot receive services in their own county because one elected official decides that her beliefs are more important than the law, is not acceptable.

Kentucky's own Senator Rand Paul says the answer is for states to stop issuing marriage licenses all together.

There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that's different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely, and I think that's where we're headed, actually.

Paul's answer is at least consistent with his beliefs in smaller government, and it removes the issue entirely by making marriage a contract between two parties with 'blessings' coming from a church if that's what you believe. But he too stays away from addressing the issue of an elected official not doing her job.

Rick Santorum, on his website, notes his respect for Davis, and vows to protect the First Amendment if elected.

I have great respect for Ms. Davis and her courage to stand up for her faith. In America we should not have to choose between keeping our job and practicing our faith. Today only reinforces my belief that the First Amendment Defense Act must be passed now at the Federal and state level. More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people cannot just worship but live out their faith in their lives.

Santorum, like others, chooses to ignore the fact that Ms Davis is not just living out her faith, but insisting that everyone else live by her faith as well.

Similarly, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal  is on the wrong side of this. Speaking to the Huffington Post, he noted

I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience. I absolutely do believe that people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away. 

And Wisconsin's golden boy Scott Walker?  He was "out there" in his response, (which is where he believes religious beliefs are practiced).

It's a balance that you've got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion.  That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.

So, in general, these folks who would be president think that:

• it's OK for an elected official to put his or her personal religious beliefs above the law, and 
• it's generally OK for an elected official to impose those personal beliefs on everyone else,
• or that citizens should just find another jurisdiction to obtain the services they're entitled to,
• or that the government should just get out of the business of doing things that people may find objectionable.  

OK.  Let's pretend those are the right answers, the correct positions to have here. And let's say that I'm an elected official, and among my duties, I'm required to issue gun licenses and permits for folks who want to concealed-carry.

And let's say that it is my personal belief that guns kill people, and I steadfastly believe that 'Thou shalt not kill, and therefore I refuse to issue any gun licenses or concealed-carry permits.  And say that a judge orders me to issue the licenses and permits, and I not only refuse to issue them myself, but I also refuse to allow anyone else in my office to issue them. And say I try to get the Supreme Court to hear my case, and they refuse. And I still will not issue the permits, because of this 'heaven and hell' position my beliefs put me in (as Davis says), and so I go to jail.

• Would Mike Huckabee hold a rally for me, and petition the President to free me right now?
• Would Rick Santorum craft legislation to protect me? 
• Would Rand Paul suggest that the government get out of the gun permitting business, and have that just be a contract between two parties?
• Would Donald Trump simply send me to a different jurisdiction to avoid this "very, very sticky situation and terrible situation" in which I placed the citizens I was elected to serve?  

I think we all know the answer to that: Of. Course. Not.

Because a citizen exercising her personal right to practice her religion and live by her personal belief  that guns are killing machines and are against her religion, thereby barring other people from being able to exercise their right to own a gun? Well, that's a completely different constituency, and we know it's one that no Republican is going to defy.

These folks would be committing political suicide if they stood by me in a battle of the Sixth Commandment and the First Amendment vs. the Second Amendment.  I know it; you know it; and they know it. Add another twist - say I was a Muslim, or an atheist -- and we'd barely be able to see them in the rear view mirror.

These candidates should all take a page out of Carly Fiorina's book:

When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And while I disagree with this court's decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience -- is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government's will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government ...?

That is exactly the issue here. And that's exactly the right answer.

That we have so many people running for president who pretend not to understand  this, and who would not have the courage of this 'religious freedom' conviction if the belief-holder wasn't a Christian, and wasn't complaining about same sex marriage, is frightening.

Why is Kim Davis in Jail?

Kim Davis is in jail because not because she's being punished for her beliefs, as some people maintain, but for her failure to obey the law and her failure to do her duty as the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.

Some of the presidential candidates are chiming in.Prominently, for example, Mike Huckabee, president of the Josh Duggar Fan Club, plans on visiting Davis on Tuesday.  He's also established a Free Kim Davis Now petition,which is front and center on his presidential campaign page.  The petition, addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and US District Judge David Bunning, states:

Immediately release Kim Davis from federal Custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given Constitutional Rights. 

Government government shutdown artist/denier Ted Cruz also supports Davis in her dereliction of duty, and has also wrongly stated the issue on purpose, noting that

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their faith - or be sent to jail.

Not so much, gentlemen.

Kim Davis is not only not being persecuted for being a Christian; she's not being persecuted at all. She's being treated like a public official who has officially shown contempt for the law, and for multiple courts. Her disdain has been duly recognized, which is what she wanted, and she's simply getting the attention she requested by defying the court's order.

Some folks are happy to point out that Davis has had four marriages, as if that should disqualify her from having a faith-based position on same-sex unions. While it might be hypocritical to profess concern about the sanctity of marriage if you've had four of them yourself, it's not really our business, and it's not the issue here. The more time spent on that argument, I think, the more time wasted.

Truth be told, I'm also not concerned with her religious beliefs. Not because I disagree with them (which I do), and certainly not because she's not entitled to them -- she is absolutely entitled to have her own personal religious beliefs, and to share them. However, she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone else. That's why they're called personal religious beliefs.

Some folks have suggested that, if Davis were a Muslim instead of a Christian, no one would have an issue  with her behavior. That argument is ridiculous; this isn't about her choice of faith - it's about her failure to do the job she was elected to do.

Davis's decision to deny marriage licenses to all who seek them, whether gay or straight, is not a defense, either. Dereliction of duty equally applied is still dereliction of duty.

Her actions are also in direct conflict with her own statements thanking those who voted for her when she was elected last year, replacing her mother who served for decades in the position.

My words can never express the appreciation, but I promise to each and every one (of her constituents) that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and fulfill the statutes of this office to the letter.  (Emphasis added.)

She also noted during the race that

If I'm elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens. Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.  (Again, emphasis added.)

A "working clerk" would issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, and a "good steward of their tax dollars" would not accept salary and benefits paid by tax dollars if he or she was not doing her job. After all, the county clerk cannot pick and choose which dollars she's going to take care of, she must take care of all of them, including the ones that pay her salary. Further, it defies logic that not issuing licenses would seem to constitute a "stop or slowdown" don't you think?

Davis should stay in jail for as many days as it takes for her to formally agree to perform all of the duties of her office. She could be released on bail, I suppose, but that would seem the easy way out (and one which would attract a lot less attention) so I doubt the option would be accepted if offered.

If she can't bring herself to faithfully execute the duties of her office -- all of them -- as required, then she must step down. I'd also like to see her repay the salary and benefits she received under false pretenses during this time. (Davis reportedly makes $80,000 per year.)

She's also potentially facing charges for misconduct,for violating the Kentucky code; charges have been referred to the State's Attorney General.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly (a) commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or (b) refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or (c) violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. 

The code doesn't get into the reasons behind an official's misconduct, and neither should we.

Kim Davis is welcome to exercise her religious beliefs, even to proselytize on her own time; she's welcome to teach bible study to prisoners (if they're interested) on her free time, as it's been reported she does.

However, she's not welcome to deny services to the taxpayers she was elected to serve, whether they are gay or straight, old or young, black or white, male or female, Christian or atheist or anything in between.

Tuesday's Number: $40,079

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were six judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $48,405.
• There was one satisfied judgment, totaling $8,326
• And there were no bankruptcies.

 Here’s the breakdown by hospital: 

• Crouse had two, for $13,328
• St. Joe’s had two, for $17,369, and
• SUNY Upstate had two, totaling $17,708
• Community had none

When there are any, I subtract the repayments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals, under the likelihood that they’ve already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now. This week, a local medical practice got the $8,300 credit. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.