Privacy and Government Data Collection

Many Americans are worried about their privacy – at least as far the government is concerned. Yet, as a nation, we seem totally oblivious to all the information about us which is collected by a variety of private businesses. And, most of that information is readily available to anyone willing to pay for it.

Long ago, I worked for a company which routinely conducted “background checks” (for lack of a better name) on individuals and businesses seeking a business relationship with us. This was long before the Internet. Someone from my company would contact our “research” company, provide the information we had, and request a report. There were different “levels” of reports offered, from a very basic look at publicly available records, on up to a “full detail” report.

The “full detail” reports on individuals were very detailed, including not just financial information, but also the names and ages of family members. They included a narrative of a researcher's visit to their homes and places of business. Frequently, they would include a summary of private interviews with the subject and/or their family members and/or their neighbors (which were conducted using some kind of ruse to hide their purpose). I gained a healthy respect for the amount of information available – for a price - back then.

These days, much of the same information is readily available online. Not long ago I went looking for “lost” alumni so that a reunion committee could contact them. Using names from 40 years ago, and the location of the school as a starting point, I was able to find 9 out of the 10 people I searched for - without paying a dime to a third party “information consolidator” or "researcher."

If I can find “private” information about former classmates, I've got to believe that the government can do so also, augmenting their information with freely available online information. Or, if they want more in-depth information, they could pay a “private research” company to provide a report (requesting it through a “shell company” to hide the fact that the government is paying for the report).

So... Do I worry about my government collecting all the numbers I dialed (or received calls from) last week on my phones? No. My phone companies already have all the numbers in their databases. And, they may have already "mined" them for their information value.

If my phone contacts can help in catching a terrorist, so much the better. 

Hell, on the right day, I might even be more than willing to just turn over my mother-in-law's name, phone number, and street address directly to the government for their investigation.

But that's a story for another day.

2014 Election Observations

The day after election day, the sun rose in the sky, as it always does. I didn't see it, as it was overcast and rainy in my area.

As I watched the election returns from around the country, I thought about citizens from around the world who live in countries which have never seen a peaceful transfer of power. While our nation's elections certainly can't be described as “peaceful,” at least our nation's usual transfers of power have not been accompanied by gunfire and deaths.

As with most elections, I like to say “I voted for a bunch of losers... Some of which won.”

I guess it's my way of saying that no candidate is perfect. I'm not perfect. My friends and family aren't perfect. In fact, the only ones I know who are “perfect” are the “church ladies,” if only in their own minds. And, I love them for it.

For me, this year's election results were mixed. I was very pleased that most of Minnesota's voters didn't punish our state's success by voting out the Democrats responsible for it. Unfortunately, some in Minnesota, and many in other states weren't so enlightened.

I was very pleased that all of Minnesota's top officers were reelected, despite the fact that Governor Mark Dayton had pushed through “a record $2.1 billion tax hike," at a time when seemingly all Republicans were calling for more tax cuts (for the wealthy) to get our economy moving. Oh, I forgot, Governor Dayton's tax hikes were targeted toward the wealthy. The top 1% of earners will pay most of the new taxes, the middle class was left unscathed. While Republicans like to call such hikes “punishing success,” Governor Dayton didn't see it that way.

During this election cycle, I did hear one or two Republicans repeat the phrase they've used for as long as I can remember "He raised our taxes." The fact is, most Minnesotans did not see a tax hike. The very wealthy did. And, the wealthy are still doing just fine.

Governor Dayton's predecessor, Tim Pawlenty, had carefully groomed himself for a Presidential bid. He cut taxes (for the wealthy). He cut spending on damn near everything, including Minnesota's schools (although the cuts were sometimes called “slowing the rate of growth” of spending). Every year was full of drama, as Governor Pawlenty cut spending (and programs) to balance the budget, rather than raising taxes. Sometimes, “creative accounting” methods had to be used. These included delaying payments, and “borrowing” (stealing) funds designated for schools.

In contrast, Governor Dayton promptly “spent” the money raised by the new taxes. Some was used to balance the state's budget, without the need to cut valuable programs (and without the drama of previous years). The rest was used to repay the money “borrowed” (stolen) from the state's school districts, and to invest in Minnesota's future. In addition to investing in some public-private development projects, Minnesota invested in K-12 education, including state funded all-day kindergarten. The state also invested in higher education, to help ensure Minnesota's future success.

By contrast, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin took the opposite tact. Like former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Governor Walker aspires to be President. He has chosen to cut state programs, rather than even considering raising taxes. He added another nail to the coffin for Wisconsin's middle class by abolishing Civil Service collective bargaining rights for most of Wisconsin's (middle class) public employees. He cut state funding for K-12 education by more than 15% . While Minnesota embraced “Obamacare,” and expanded its Medicaid coverage, Governor Walker rejected both ideas. Minnesota had some of the lowest premiums in the nation for insurance policies purchased on its state exchange, Wisconsin's premiums were much higher.

Minnesota's already low uninsured rate improved under Governor Dayton, and Minnesota is, once again, investing in its future.

Wisconsin's economic growth has lagged Minnesota's economic growth.

While two, four, or even ten years, may not be enough time to properly evaluate the long term consequences of the “invest” versus the “cut” strategies of Minnesota and Wisconsin (or the strategies of our nation's other states), I like Minnesota's prospects much more than I do those of Wisconsin.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have elected two very different Governors. I know that a policy of cuts, as championed by former Presidential hopeful, Governor Tim Pawlenty, was not beneficial for Minnesota. But, perhaps, Governor Walker can make it work in Wisconsin.

I doubt it. But, it is an interesting experiment to test an unproven economic theory. And, no matter what the outcome, I'm confident Governor Walker will declare it to be a success during his Presidential campaign.

I prefer to see my state, and our nation, move forward.

Successful businesses are constantly investing in their futures. Businesses which are constantly “cutting” may see some temporary “success,” but typically they're in a fatal downward spiral.

I believe that the same holds true for our states, and our nation. Minnesota is growing. Wisconsin's downward spiral has yet to be stemmed.

Time will tell.

Vote for Your Nation

This year's attack attack ads have been brutal as ever. They may cause some to consider turning their backs and not vote. Resist that thought.

Vote.

The attack ads might make you want to vote for a third party candidate as a “protest vote.” Unless you honestly believe that the third party candidate is the best candidate (and has a real chance to win) don't consider voting for them. You'll only succeed in allowing others to choose the winner. A “protest vote” says nothing, and may just result in a truly bad candidate being elected.

If you're a single issue voter, please stop. Our nation (and our world), is an increasingly complex place, with many interlocking parts. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is dangerous, as you're ignoring many other issues which may be equally – or more – important than your single issue.

Ignore politicians who say that they have a “simple, common sense solution” to deal with an issue or a problem. Our world is complex. There are no “simple solutions.” A politician who believes that there are clearly does not understand the problem.

Cutting taxes (for the wealthy), to solve every problem is not a real solution, no matter what a politician might say.

Explore where your candidate stands on all the issues, not just your core issues. Also consider our nation's Constitutional protections. If your core issues become become law, are they likely to pass constitutional muster?

Consider the issue of gay marriage.

Many religious leaders were (and are) against gay marriage. One of the core groups in the Republican base is religious conservatives. In addition to providing some funding, religious conservatives provide a strong block of votes for Republican candidates. It's imperative to the goals of the Republican Party that they keep these key members of their base happy, as there aren't enough rich white men to allow Republicans to win elections.

Republicans initially had great success in pushing through anti-gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments in many states. They used deeply religious citizens to supply needed votes. Clearly, the Republicans, and the voters in those states which passed such laws, were putting their religious beliefs (or their lust for power) ahead of our nation's Constitution. Eventually, the courts will reverse the unconstitutional laws.

I find it sad that some continue to want “their” religious “laws” written into our nation's laws. If allowed, what's to stop a future religious group from subjecting future generations to “their” religious laws, rather than “our” religious laws? Only by keeping our nation's laws separate from religious “laws” can our nation hope to offer religious freedom for generations to come.

Remember, when you vote, you're helping to set the course for our nation. Do you really want to vote for candidates whose party thought it was okay to start two expensive wars, while for the first time in our nation's history, cutting taxes (for the wealthy)?

Deficits were not an issue as a Republican administration was borrowing money to pay for our nation's wars - and our nation's tax cuts (for the wealthy). But, deficits became important very quickly when a Democrat was elected to be President. 

Republicans were more than willing to shut down our government if they couldn't have their way. And, Republicans even threatened to allow – for the first time ever – our nation to default on its debt, a strategy which experts said would plunge our nation – and the world – into an economic depression.

I fail to understand how voters can justify such reckless, and nation weakening, behavior by politicians that they choose to repeatedly re-elect.

I encourage voters to look closely at those politicians who claim to be patriotic and speak about supporting our Constitution, yet repeatedly act to weaken our nation and disrespect our Constitution.

Vote for candidates who will move our nation forward, not for ones who would destroy it. Contrary to the views of most Republicans, our nation is strongest when our government (of the people) is strong. Vote for country, not an for unproven ideology. 

Vote. Always vote.

Sex, Lies, and Political Ads

My wife and I were talking about this year's political attack ads. You know, the ones we all hate, even when they're attacking the "other" candidate, not "our" candidate.

Anyway... My wife tells me that one of her friends swears that she has yet to see an attack ad during her favorite daytime "soap opera."

I find the claim hard to believe. But, it makes me wonder. I have no idea what the current marketing demographic breakdown is for such programs.

I suspect, however, that an audience accustomed to seeing sex, lies, drama, and "secret agendas" on a daily basis might just be too smart to be fooled by a political attack ad.