The 0.7 Percent Solution

One of the drivers of economic growth – particularly in relative stagnant times – is an increase in local consumption. Most of that kind of increase comes from a growing population, but the U.S., particularly since 2010, is experiencing what little annualized growth there is solely by reason of immigration, not a stable or growing birth rate. Over 2016 (July to July), we’ve increased our population, even with assistance from immigration, by a meagre 0.7 percent annually, a number that has been sliding every year since 2010 and, according to the U.S. Census, is the smallest annual expansion in 80 years.

Our new administration speaks of “building a wall” and “deportation,” which is going to reduce our population even more, even as the “net” number of undocumented families in the U.S. already has been in decline for a while. A 2015 study from the Pew Research Center tells us that: “From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico,according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.” So if we are worried about a growing increase in our Latino population, that number is not coming from immigration.

Despite that net decline in folks from south of the border, there are many Americans who remain worried about the growing numbers of non-white citizens in the United States. They are losing political capital fast. With most of that diverse growth concentrated in and around cities, white incumbents need rural values to continue to dominate urban ones if they are to maintain control. Yet one way or the other, it’s really about the birth rates for those living here, and this really a very large component of too many states’ trying to marginalize non-white voters any way they can. Simply, the number of traditional white voters is in serious decline, while non-traditional, non-white votes is on the increase. Let’s look at the numbers.

The U.S. total fertility rate is 1.9 births per woman, down from 2.1 at the onset of the recession in 2007. This represents a continuing trend where that the U.S. fertility rate has been below “replacement level” (that 2.1 number) the level that is needed for couples to replace themselves in the population. 

Most of the positive growth within our own birth rates is concentrated in non-traditional, non-white groupings. Look at the most common names today according to the U.S. Census. “Taylor and Thomas are out. Lopez and Gonzalez are in. Six of the 15 most common surnames in the United States were of Hispanic origin in 2010, compared with four of 15 in 2000 and none as recently as 1990.” New York Times, December 15^th. The contraction is primarily among white families, perhaps concerned with the rapidly rising costs of raising and educating children in a world of serious economic uncertainty, much less of a concern for most minority families.

The University of Nebraska (Omaha – Center for Public Affairs Research) studied fertility rates, based on numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics, among various racial/ethnic groups from 2007 to 2013. Their analysis tells you why, in sheer numbers (and hence as a percentage of the overall US population) traditional white constituents are shrinking – with birth rates below replacement value as noted above – and the number of what were once minorities growing:

“The 2013 U.S. fertility rate among Hispanics stands at 73 births per thousand women aged 15-44, which is down from 98 in 2006, prior to the economic downturn, and 108 in 1990. The U.S. fertility rate among Black non-Hispanics was 65 in 2013, only an eight-point difference versus the Hispanic rate, the smallest difference in at least 25 years. Prior to the recession, the Black fertility rate was nearly 30 points below the Hispanic rate.

“The report also shows that the U.S. White non-Hispanic fertility rate has held relatively stable since 1990, at around 60 births per thousand women of reproductive age. That said, since 2007 the fertility rate among Whites has declined slightly, from 61 in 2007, prior to the recession, to 59 in 2013.” These trends continue into the present day, and as for white Americans, life expectancy has taken an unprecedented turn for the worse, even as such numbers for blacks and Hispanics have improved.

“Life expectancy declined slightly for white Americans in 2014, according to new federal data, a troubling sign that distress among younger and middle-age whites who are dying at ever-higher rates from drug overdoses is lowering average life spans for the white population as a whole… The pattern had puzzled demographers, but the recent analyses have pointed to suffering and anxiety among working-class whites.” New York Times, April 20th, citing numbers generated by the National Center for Health Statistics. This demographic segment is the stronghold for those white traditional Trump supporters fighting to find relevance in a highly redefined economic world. Thus, death rates are higher even as birth rates for this constituency continue to drop.

“With birthrates generally low and members of that outsize boomer generation entering their 60s and 70s, growth may continue to slow for years to come… ‘We are going to see, for probably another 10, 15 years, the number of deaths increasing and that’s going to slow down the net growth,’ said Jeffrey S. Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Research Center.” New York Times, December 22nd.

Obviously, growth and birth rates are not evenly distributed across the country. Some areas are doing fine, while others – whether because local economies based on fossil fuel extraction or other economic variable – are in long-term decline. And clearly, with population shifts, the centers of voting and economic power shift right alongside. Get used to it, and nothing in legally-available “remedies” (a pretty nasty word in this context) is likely to change the vectors of regional and cultural/ethnic/racial expansion or decline.

“Despite the slow national expansion, some states had substantial growth in population… The population of Utah, the nation’s fastest-growing state this year, expanded by about 2 percent, as did Nevada, a runner-up. Idaho was next, followed by Florida and Washington, with about 1.8 percent each…

“A state’s fortunes can quickly reverse, as they did for North Dakota this year. After four years as the nation’s fastest-growing state, North Dakota dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, thanks to residents fleeing for other parts of the country.

“Only eight states posted declines, with West Virginia shrinking the most, relatively, by 0.5 percent. Illinois lost more residents than any other state, shedding nearly 38,000, driven by people moving out.

“The West dominated the top of the list, accounting for seven of the 10 fastest-expanding states. That region and the more-populous South each had population growth of nearly 1.1 percent over the year… ‘The movement to the South and West is a very long-term trend,’ said Mr. Passel of Pew, adding that those regions attract older residents of the Northeast and Midwest looking for more temperate places to retire.

“The Midwest expanded by nearly 0.2 percent, while the population in the Northeast remained virtually unchanged. Both regions lost more residents than they gained from migration, though that was offset by more births than deaths.” NY Times.

“The South is now home to 38 percent of the national population, while 24 percent of Americans live in the West. The Midwest is home to 21 percent of the population and the Northeast is home to 17 percent.

“California was the most populous state, with 39.3 million residents. Texas was next with 27.9 million, followed by Florida, New York and Illinois. Texas grew more, by sheer number, than any other state, adding about 433,000 people. Florida was next, with 368,000 new residents.” NY Times.

The numbers suggest that we are in for a tumultuous future as long-standing political power and control will, sooner or later, follow these massive changes. States with rapidly contracting populations still have two U.S. Senators each! Will a new America evolve with new power groups on top? Or is all this a suggestion that the United States is headed for a break-up into smaller, more internally homogeneous countries? How hard are the once-all-powerful incumbents willing to fight to maintain political dominance? What kind of resistance will they face? Is our political system so polarized and dysfunctional that it is incapable of fixing itself without a (violent?) reconfiguration? We used to be good at peaceful transitions, but are we still? Stay tuned, particularly after January 20th, for a very difficult and bumpy ride.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if we do not find a solid way to heal our great divides relatively soon, what will happen to this nation otherwise is a deeply sad thought to contemplate.

What the Democrats Still Do Not Get

Listening to the likes of Joe Biden, licking his lips at the expected disappointments the completely Republican federally elected Congress and Presidency will foist on the little guys whose nascent support gave Donald Trump the election, suggests that the Democrats simply do not understand their rather obvious and continuing vulnerability. The thrust of so many Monday morning Democrat quarterbacks is that the system cheated them out of a victory. Like Russian hacks and FBI meddling. Going forward, they are relying heavily on a GOP-screw-up and not on a new Democratic message. “They own it,” say old line Dems at the new GOP federal leadership. “Every time something goes wrong, it will be their fault,” say others.

Dems, licking the 2016 wounds, seem to be building toward the 2018 mid-terms where they arrogantly expect to displace that GOP Congressional majority. Really, Dems? Are you that much out of touch with what just happened? Do you really think you are prepared for the master of blame-shifting, Donald Trump, who will continue to have you in his sights? And why haven’t the Dems realized that their old tired messages simply will be even less effective in the coming years? When are they going to listen to the disenfranchised voters and stop counting on a demographic shift of more minority votes to take them over the top… without redefining their message?

Let’s look at what’s really going on. There are going to be more Americans moving down the economic ladder in the next four years. Fewer people will live lifestyles equal to or better than those of their parents. For recent immigrant families and incumbent underclass minorities, that statement might not apply, but it is certainly the way it is for traditional white voters, who are feeling increasingly under siege from the rapid expansion of minorities who will inevitably dilute and displace their control of American government. Think foreign policy is the driver? Really, you think so? What happened to that political basic, “It’s the economy, stupid”? The GOP got it.

While clearly other issues may have diluted the total importance of the economy in this last election, it remains America’s dominant political concern. “An examination of the exit polls in three key states that helped swing the election Trump's way revealed that the economy was by far the most important issue to votes…In Michigan, [for example,] 52% of voters said economy was ‘most important issue facing the country,’ compared to 60% of voters who said [the same] thing about the economy in 2012.” AOL.com, December 24^th. But who gets to determine that economic policy is a very key issue. 

The battle over the replacement of the existing Electoral College system with a popular vote – Hillary Clinton drew millions more actual popular votes than did Mr. Trump – is seen as seminal in maintaining white control. Keeping that form of presidential election process is seen as necessary to white traditionalists… in addition to the minority voter suppression efforts of voter IDs, gerrymandering, inconvenient voting venues for minorities and the new North Carolina-driven effort of disempowering an incoming Democratic governor.

Champion of white conservative rights, one Fox News mega-commentator has “nicely” summarized his followers’ position: “Bill O’Reilly doesn’t want the Electoral College – or the disproportionate power it brings rural, white voters – to disappear… In a two-and-a-half minute introduction to the segment, the conservative Fox News anchor threw his support behind the [Electoral College] system, insisting its survival was necessary to ensure that voters in predominantly rural states are not overrun by a growing population of minorities in city centers.

“‘The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with, he told The O'Reilly Factor viewers on Tuesday [12/20]. ‘The left wants power taken away from the white establishment. They want a profound change in the way America is run. Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that.’

“The segment has left liberals reeling, with many calling Mr. O’Reilly’s comments racist, saying he appears to prefer white votes holding additional influence over ballots cast by minorities. But for some, O’Reilly’s comments illuminate a larger segment of the population that fears the eroding influence of white voters in a rapidly changing America – the very group that President-elect Donald Trump rallied to win key swing states.

“Those disappointed with Mr. Trump’s victory have protested the centuries-old system and called for a shift to a popular vote that would create equity among individual votes nationwide. Others have pushed back, arguing that the system put in place by the Founding Fathers in 1787 is a traditional and key element of the US democratic process.” Christian Science Monitor, December 21^st. For a more detailed analysis of exactly how the United States became a nation where one rural, white traditional vote has the approximate voting power of 1.8 urban votes, please take a look at my November 25^thblog, Farmageddon.

Hey, Dems, want some more really bad news? Remember that not all the Senate races were up for a vote in 2016. Here’s what 2018 really looks like: “After a tough but lucky 2016, when several incumbent senators held on despite polls suggesting that they would lose, Republicans are hoping for blowout wins in 2018. Democrats have 23 seats to defend, as well as the seats of independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King; Republicans just have eight to defend, and just one in a blue state. Ten of the Democrats come from states won by Donald Trump, from coin-flip Wisconsin to landslide West Virginia.

“That's letting Republicans play offense, and as Eliana Johnson reports in Politico, Trump-allied groups are targeting the Democrats from the reddest states to complicate any opposition to Trump's nominees to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department. America Rising Squared has launched campaigns to defend Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and is planning TV ads to pressure Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.). The Judicial Confirmation Network, which pressured Republicans to block any hearings on the open Supreme Court seat, is similarly moving to offense.” Washington Post, December 21^st. Think the GOP has a solid argument for making the Senate filibuster-proof in 2018 to implement their programs? “Those Democrats are blocking us in our effort to help you.”

For Democrats looking for populist leadership in 2018 and beyond from defeated Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, remember before he ran in the Democratic primary race and immediately after he lost, Bernie wasn’t/isn’t even a Democrat!!! The Dems have taken on the mantle of the “out-of-touch” liberal elite – snooty professorial/professional types who live solidly middle class or better lives and have no idea what it is like to face layoffs or to live paycheck-to-paycheck – with little in the way of clear and believable programs that would provide greater economic security and income enhancement specifically to reach this newly terrified and abandoned voting class.

The Dems are seen as a pool of old ideas and older leaders. Trump may have lied and embellished what he could do for these voters, but his message was directly aimed at providing these “afterthought former Democrats” with how his programs would make their individual economic futures better. Hillary didn’t even campaign in Wisconsin and showed up once in Michigan. She lost both of these working-class “Democratic sure things.” At least Trump promised to try something new and different. But if you look at the Democrat’s message… it has not changed!

Think I’m railing without understanding. Try this one on for size: After a challenge from seven-term rust-belt Ohioan, 43-year-old Tim Ryan (pictured left above), a younger progressive Democratic candidate, the House Dems reelected a 76-year-old from one of the richest and most elite congressional districts in the country (California’s 12^th which is basically San Francisco) as House Minority Leader… Nancy Pelosi (pictured right above), the poster child for everything that scares former members of the middle class looking for hope and a new direction for their plunging economic prospects. Yup, San Francisco where $1 million buys you an 800 square foot home. Pelosi’s net worth is estimated to be somewhere between a low of $30 million (RollCall.com) and a high of $100 million (CheatSheet.com), compared to Ryan’s estimated low-end of six figures. Nothing screams louder to disenfranchised Americans that we Dems “don’t hear you and we don’t care, because we are changing nothing!” Young Dems, defer to your out-of-touch elders!

So as the Democratic Party gently places a shotgun in its mouth, fiddling with the trigger and hoping there are no shells in the chamber, the Republican Party – which faces more than a few of its own internal struggles – just may be the party ready to gloat in 2018. If something fails as dramatically as the 2016 efforts by Democrats in the November election, perhaps it is time to refocus the message, reconfigure the leadership and stop trying just to fix the packaging!

I’m Peter Dekom, and somewhere in the Democratic Party there needs to be a wake-up call… or perhaps party stalwarts are more interested in attending a wake for their old world party instead.

So What Can I Do About It?

My blogs explore issues, examine controversies and point out some of the most impactful governmental actions or inactions that could alter our lives in a very big way. Occasionally, I suggest solutions, some unpopular with those who serve elected office. Many of my readers ask, “But what can I do about it?” The notion of being one dot in a sea of people belies the power that American citizens really have as “squeaky wheels,” demanding responses from those in elected office.

When you care, you need to communicate those feelings with your representatives. If you think they need to see an article that you found important in my blog, send them the link with your thoughts. Communicate!!!! Squeaky wheels have a very deep impact on how elected officials vote and act. Silence suggests that what they are doing is OK with you.

Buckminster Fuller coined a great term some years ago: "trimtabbing." A large ocean liner has an equally massive rudder. The rudder is so large, in fact, that it can't be turned by itself. These huge rudders consequently have much smaller rudders of their own called trimtabs. Turning that smaller trimtab would cause the rudder to turn which would then turn the ship. Mr. Fuller compared the ship of state to a huge ship at sea. He reckoned that the government was much too massive for one person to be able to effect real change, however if that person instead focused on the trimtabs of government, (elected representatives, government administrators, and the media) one person COULD make a difference.

Don’t know who your representatives are? Well, at the federal level, you can use this site to identify those representing your constituency based on place of residence:http://act.commoncause.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sunlight_advocacy_list_page

For State elected officials, try:

https://www.usa.gov/states-and-territories

And for local officials, there is:

https://www.usa.gov/local-governments

Want to contact the political parties, here you go:

For Democrats - http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact

For Republicans, you can email: ecampaign@gop.com

Keep in mind that a handwritten, mailed note carries much more weight than something printed off a computer or emailed. It shows them that this topic was important enough to you to take pen in hand to write an original note and buy a stamp.

Letters to the editor are also an excellent way to communicate. (whether online or in print) Write to your local regional and national news outlets. Try to reference something specific in their previous reporting that you are responding to. If you do get something published, let your representatives know about it. The internet also offers you access to a worldwide audience. If something is important to you and you feel you have something constructive to add to the conversation on a continuous basis, start your own blog.

Yes, my blogs are intended to inform, influence and often to change. Over the past 8 years, I've posted more than 2500 articles on a pretty wide variety of topics I care about. Some of my work might be amusing, other writings scary, but when any issue resonates with you, when you think someone should do something about it, please spread the word. Talk to people about that issue, or encourage them to read that blog. Then, and most important, communicate to those who are charged with representing you interests in government. The more voices they hear, the more likely they'll be to take action.

I’m Peter Dekom, and yes you really can have an impact if you just try!!!

Whistling in the Wind

In a rage for transparency and even within the context of “draining the swamp,” there is a strong bi-partisan belief that waste and government corruption (or just plain “inappropriate” government action or inaction) requires that those dreaded “whistleblowers” be protected from retaliation. As we have seen repeatedly, that seldom happens, but there is a federal agency – at least vis-à-vis the federal government – that is charged with making sure that such retaliation simply does not occur.

According to FederalPractice.com, the Website of a private law firm that represents federal employees dealing with such retaliation claims, “Known as the Office of Special Counsel, the OSC is an independent federal agency which seeks to protect current federal employees, or those seeking federal employment, from practices related to the handling of personnel in a variety of scenarios. The OSC provides critical protection for federal workers against retribution related to whistleblowing, prohibited personnel practices and violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERAA as well as the Civil Services Reform Act, which created the OSC in 1978.

“Additionally, the OSCR [the “R” is for retaliation/retribution] is a safe means for federal workers who wish to disclose information about workplace violations of virtually any type, as well as forcing compliance with the Hatch Act which places legal restrictions on political activity within the workplace. Any engagement with the OSC in terms of filing a claim should be at the guidance of a proven attorney in order to provide the best possible chance at success.” In short, you cannot trust the federal government to act properly, when you are a whistleblower, unless you have your own lawyer?! Ouch!

But we are facing something never before seen since the various whistleblower statutes were passed: a president with substantial business interests – even if the day-to-day administration is relegated to “others” (are those “others,” the children of that president, really free from discussions and influences from their dad anyway?) – that are subject to numerous federal laws and regulations.

Federal employees have been and are going to be charged with enforcing those laws and regulations, efforts which could prove very costly to the president himself. See a problem there? Not just those appointed by the president but down and dirty tenured civil servants and congressionally-approved appointments from earlier administrations. Donald’s not getting rid of most of his major companies; he’s even maintaining his executive producer credit on NBC’s The Apprentice.

And while there are plenty of conflict-of-interest provisions against most federal employees, managers, vendors and elected/appointed officials, the president himself is remarkably free from any of such statutory restrictions. There is one area where the president is still covered, but there are real questions as to how complete this provision might be against his purported conflicts. The Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 9, prohibits any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Only specific congressional consent validates such exchanges. Not much in the way of clarity in a business context, which thus places the onus of the conflicts mostly on the individual federal employees charged with enforcing the law against businesses in which the president has a serious economic interest.

Washington Post (Federal Insider, December 22^nd) writer Joe Davidson, posits the issues this way: “[Federal agency] retributions against employees generally don’t involve retaliation on behalf of an outside party. That’s behind what OSC says the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) did to an unidentified staffer after he complained that oil and gas lease agreements between energy companies and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Colorado appeared to violate BIA regulations and environmental laws.

“‘The employee’s disclosures angered a Native American tribe, and the tribe put pressure on the highest levels of BIA and the Interior Department to reassign the employee from the BIA’s office on the tribe’s reservation,’ read an OSC statement [in mid-December]. BIA fired the employee in 2013. He was reinstated with back wages and compensatory payments in an agreement OSC negotiated.

“In normal times, this case might not make this column. But Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory [having lost the popular vote] makes these times abnormal.  With the president-elect’s extensive business and financial holdings, this case could have larger implications. There’s been much attention to potential conflicts for Trump and his family. Yet, his businesses could present conflicts for federal employees, too.

“For example, if Trump doesn’t completely divest his business operations and one violated federal regulations, would agency staffers hesitate to impose enforcement actions that could harm the boss’s financial interests? If the regulations were not enforced, would workers fear being retaliated against for disclosing that dereliction of duty?

“In BIA’s case, the ‘failure to defend its employee and, instead, to cave to a retaliatory demand is a PPP (prohibited personnel practice),’ OSC’s 17-page report said. ‘The chilling effect is clear: BIA employees are silenced from disclosing violations of law if they anticipate that such disclosures will be unpalatable to a Tribe and that BIA will simply bend to the Tribe’s will.’

“[Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner] told The Washington Post that ‘federal managers need to abide by merit system principles, even when there is outside pressure to retaliate. It’s important for the federal workforce to know about this case to help deter future acts of retaliation. It’s vital that federal managers protect employees who anger outside interests when they uncover potential wrongdoing as a part of their job.’

“Whatever implications stem from this case will be played out in the context of the disturbing news that the Trump transition team asked the Department of Energy (DOE) for the names of individual employees and contractors who attended conferences on climate change, a global phenomenon Trump called a hoax. That inquiry worried workers concerned that there could be reprisals from incoming Trump officials for work done on policies he opposes.

“The OSC enforcement action in the Southern Ute case ‘sends a strong signal that agencies must not retaliate against whistleblowers to mollify key stakeholders,’ said Jason Zuckerman, a Washington lawyer specializing in whistleblower retaliation. ‘The troubling questionnaire that the Trump transition team sent to DOE to identify scientists performing research on global warming suggests that regulated industries might view the new administration as an opportunity to punish federal workers for enforcing regulations or force federal workers to abandon investigations or enforcement actions for political reasons.’

“In a letter to its members, the Southern Ute Tribal Council said OSC misrepresented it ‘as actively trying to skirt environmental regulations, then seeking retaliation for a BIA employee ‘whistleblower’ who had refused to let environmental mandates slide. This is simply not the case.’ The Tribal Council said it wanted the employee replaced because of incompetence, disrespect and ‘disregard for the Tribe’s sovereignty.’

“The BIA ignored most of my questions, saying only it appreciated OSC’s review and intends to comply with its requests for the worker’s reinstatement and compensation.

“Federal employees who enforce regulations ‘may be understandably reluctant to put objections, stipulations and cautions in writing for fear that it may cause them to be put on White House hit lists,’ said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Enforcing rules that conflict with Trump administration policies, under ‘a chief executive who is so thin-skinned that he regularly gets into Twitter-spats with actors about comedy skits,’ he added, ‘may require a profile in courage.’”

One thing for sure, thanks to an “obscure provision in the IRS manual” introduced during the Nixon-era Watergate scandal, “When Donald Trump is sworn in as the nation’s 45^th president, his complex business empire will immediately be subject to an audit by the Internal Revenue Service… Trump and his vice president, Mike Pence, will each be under a mandatory audit annually.” mcclatchydc.com, November 29^th. Wouldn’t you like to be named to that audit team?!

Exactly how would you feel enforcing a law or regulation against the financial interests of your top boss, an individual with a notorious reputation for massive retribution against anyone who crosses him or his interests? Might feel like skipping over that one, right? Taking on a strongman can be life-changing… in a very bad way. So exactly what are the checks and balances against a rich president, with lots of federally-regulated businesses, if not the government of the people, by the people and for the people?

I’m Peter Dekom, and the Chinese curse – “may you live in interesting times” – is definitely upon us.