Pathological Altruism, Enabling and Codependency

James Taranto's more-or-less daily column in the WSJ is one of my favorites, so it was nice to see a theme I've espoused before echoed in his latest offering. To wit, I wrote this entry back in 2008...

http://dontcomeinhere.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-big-surprise-bailout-of-freddie-and.html

Congress and the Administration have teamed up to cover the losses of these mortgage behemoths. They essentially took them over as government operations, kinda like Hugo Chavez did for many industries in Venezuela.
Now, between the three of them (Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie), US taxpayers are on the hook for about half of the existing $12T in mortgage debt.
...
The student loan industry is a mirror image of the mortgage industry and is likely to face a similar explosion. Government creates a perverse incentive (usually in the name of diversity) to loan money to people who cannot pay it back. As a government supported program, private lenders are willing to take more and more risk, pocketing the profits and turning to the Government to cover to losses....
Our Government is a classic enabler and we are all codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable." Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is. 

As the latter example suggests, the idea of "codependency" is a subset of pathological altruism. "Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior," Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.
Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this "altruism" to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States. 

The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we've argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their "disparate impact" on minorities.

 

Reagan Quote is Prophetic

In a letter to the editor in WSJ, someone rendered this Reagan quote.

Ronald Reagan warned of the strategy that Ms. Noonan describes in a speech he gave on Oct. 14, 1969, at a fundraiser for Eisenhower College.

Then-California Gov. Reagan said: "We are approaching the end of our second century. It has been pointed out that the days of democracy are numbered once the belly takes command of the head. When the less affluent feel the urge to break a commandment and begin to covet that which their more affluent neighbors possess, they are tempted to use their votes to obtain instant satisfaction. Then equal opportunity at the starting line becomes the extended guarantee of at least a tie at the finish of the race. Under the euphemism 'the greatest good for the greatest number,' we destroy a system which has accomplished just that and move toward the managed economy which strangles freedom and mortgages generations yet to come."

Back in '69 he probably wasn't senile yet (Alzheimer's), and this comment was simply prophetic.

Welfare $$ > Minimum Wage

Want to know why unemployment and foodstamp use remains at high levels (foodstamps is all-time high)?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/welfare-can-pay-more-than-that-entry-level-job-20130820

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

"Not only do government-assistance programs for the unemployed pay more than minimum wage in 35 states, but they also pay more than a $15-an-hour job, according to the report. Hawaii has the "most generous benefit package," following by the District of Columbia and Massachusetts.

"In 11 states, these programs pay more annually than the average teacher after his or her first year on the job. In 39 states, it pays more than a starting salary of a secretary. And the comparisons continue.

In total, the federal government spends $668.2 billion on these programs annually, while states give out another $284 billion, the report finds. 

“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” Tanner and Hughes write in their new paper. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” which offers extra subsidies to low-income workers who take work. “In 13 states [welfare] pays more than $15 per hour.”

"Tanner and Hughes award the national welfare championship to Hawaii, which offers $60,590 in annual welfare benefits, once you account for the fact that welfare benefits are tax-free to the recipient, compared to work-related wages. That’s the equivalent of $29.13 an hour. Rounding out the top five were D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01).

And the kicker:

"welfare benefits are entirely tax-free.

Obama Administration Abuses of Power

After Tea Party IRS scandal, etc. there may be a reason for that one too. See Investor's Business Daily's take...perhaps this was another take of Obama administration using its muscle to silence opposition...

On Aug. 24, 2011, federal agents executed four search warrants on Gibson Guitar Corp. facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., and seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. One of the top makers of acoustic and electric guitars, including the iconic Les Paul introduced in 1952, Gibson was accused of using wood illegally obtained in violation of the century-old Lacey Act, which outlaws trafficking in flora and fauna the harvesting of which had broken foreign laws.

Interestingly, one of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin's catalog, several of their guitars contain "East Indian Rosewood," which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson's guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said at the time, adding the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means."

That includes what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm#ixzz2eKU9MF6G 

Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Daily Kos Cognitive Dissonance

Recall (ha) that  55 Colorado sheriffs filed to overturn new gun laws in Colorado and that there are some recall elections coming up.

From email today:

"This is it, Mike. Tuesday is election day in the NRA recalls of two Colorado Democrats and both races are neck-and-neck. Can you chip in $3 to Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron, the two Democrats targeted by the NRA, to help the get out the vote in these final two days?

The NRA pushed for these recalls. They flooded these races with big money attack ads, kicking in $350,000 according to their last spending report. They said that winning in Colorado would cause a “wave of fear” to wash across state legislatures nationwide—paralyzing any new gun laws at the state level.

Oh, the money the evil NRA is using to buy this election, the horror. The unfairness of it all. The NRA "floods" the race with "big money attack ads". Spends $350K! 

But then something amazing happened. The Daily Kos community stepped up and, with the help of 12,906 contributors nationwide, we’ve almost matched the NRA dollar-for-dollar in these races.

 

Is the Daily Kos not doing *exactly* what the NRA is doing? Spending big money and flooding the races--"dollar-for-dollar"? Outsiders (not Coloradans) driving the money in the races? Actually, it's much worse:

Anti-recall groups have raised $3.1 million while pro-recall groups have raised $266,231. These numbers do not include non-profits that have raised and spent money in the recalls but do not have to disclose their contributions. [http://gazette.com/interactive-map-who-donated-to-the-colorado-recall-election/article/1505839]

It's very interesting to me that 

Democrats are leading three-to-one in the early voting period, but election day turnout is expected to be anemic and both campaigns are getting ready to make their final get out the vote expenditures. Simply put, these elections could come down to just a few votes on either side.

I sincerely hope that the early-voting ballots (essentially absentee mail-in votes) are thoroughly vetted. I have little doubt that these mail-on votes tilting to Democrats represents a huge potential for fraud. The Kos basically says as much when they note that once "real" voting starts, their margins are likely to be chopped down to nothing (harder to create fraudulent votes in the voting booth than in the mail). Already fraud reports are being denied by the Clerk in one district, while Democrats are papering local college campuses to get students who just arrived to use their same-day voter registration to vote. 

El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton took issue with Colorado College students who she said were dropping off 10 ballots at a time last week at early voting centers.

"Initially, it concerned me because they were bringing in several ballots for each person," said Littleton, who confronted the students about it.

But under the law, a person is allowed to drop off up to 10 ballots.

[http://gazette.com/county-clerk-discounts-voter-fraud-allegations-in-colorado-recall/article/1505965]

News cast this AM mischaracterized market reaction

Paraphrasing…”The stock market has fallen over 400 points in the last two days over fears of government gridlock and the impending fiscal cliff.”

The impending fiscal cliff was impending last week, Monday, Tuesday…what happened between Tuesday and Wednesday?

All polls and expectations were that Democrats would retain control of the Senate and Republicans would retain control of the House, which is exactly what happened. So status quo. The iffy element was the Presidential race, which was nearly a toss-up heading into election day.

If there is to be gridlock, it would be with Pres. Obama and the sitting Congress, especially with respect to the impending fiscal cliff:

• The Obama (née  Bush) tax cuts expire Dec 31 unless something is done by Pres Obama and the sitting Congress. The election has changed nothing about that situation.
• The Obama payroll tax cut expires at the same time, again unless something is done by Pres Obama and the sitting Congress. And again, the election has changed nothing about that situation.
• Many of the Obamacare taxes take effect on 1 Jan 2013, once again unless something is done by Pres Obama and the sitting Congress. And once again, the election has changed nothing about that situation.  
• Finally, because Pres Obama and the sitting Congress failed to enact the requisite $1.2 in spending cuts required by the debt limit legislation, Pres. Obama and the sitting Congress will face the automatic spending cuts to defense, Medicare, and many other spending programs. Those cuts take effect 15 Jan 2013, before the new Congress is sworn in, so yet again, the election has changed nothing about the situation.

It seems to me that the only thing that has changed is that before the election, there was a good chance that Pres. Obama would lose. Wednesday morning, he has won his re-election and cemented in four more years of his administration. Surely this is what the market is reacting to, not some fear of government gridlock?

Venezuelan Voters not Deterred by "Undue Burden"

A growing number of states have passed voter ID laws requiring voters to present a state-accepted form of identification. In each an every case, Democrats have challenged the laws and in almost every case have lost those challenges--the recent stay in the Pennsylvania case is one "victory" for the left, albeit a minor one as the law will go into full effect following the upcoming elections.

These laws are meant to prevent voter fraud of several kinds. The least important of these is so-called "in-person voter fraud" or "voter impersonation". More important, however, is the ability to filter out illegal immigrants from voting as well as citizens who's residence (per their ID) conflicts with the voter registration indicating that they should be voting in another district or even another state.

Democrats' primary response to these laws is a cry of racism. For some reason "people of color" are purportedly more likely to be impacted, because they are poor, uneducated, and more likely not to have a driver's license. It's never been clear to me how poor, uneducated white people are not going to be impacted equally, but maybe they all have driver's licenses?

Bear in mind that, recognizing that not all citizens possess current and valid forms of ID, states passing these laws have a number of provisions for free IDs, so there is no "poll tax" implication. Also, anyone who still has not managed to obtain an ID before Election Day can still cast a provisional ballot, which effectively gives them more time to get ID or simply swear an affidavit.

With all of the public discussion, with all of the free IDs available, it seems to me that the problem here is that some people simply cannot be bothered to make the slightest effort to ensure their vote will be counted.

The Supreme Court has rejected the arguments regarding undue burden:

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.

For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the [Indiana] BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

And yet, the fight continues state-by-state, with Democrats making the same tired--and rejected by the Supreme Court--arguments.

I say all of the above so that the following offering of a counterpoint is more stark.

Recently Venezuela held an election, an election that is widely considered to be rigged to favor the current President-cum-dictator-for-life Hugo Chavez. Elections in Venezuela allow expatriots to vote, by appearing in person at a Venezuelan consulate.

There are some 20,000 U.S.-based Venezuelans, many who left their home country to escape the predations of the Chavez government, living in the Southeast. Earlier this year, the consulate in Miami was closed after the US State Department expelled the consul after she was implicated in an Iranian plot for a cyber-attack against the U.S.

Voters only recourse was to make a trip to New Orleans, the next closest consulate.

Thousands of U.S.-based Venezuelans flocked to New Orleans by bus, car and airplane to vote.

Venezuelans around the world also came out to vote en masse: An anti-Chavez Venezuelan television station showed people traveling to a consulate in Germany to vote, and others voting in Panama.

Sequera said the closure did not deter the thousands who turned out, chanting "Venezuela" and waving their nation's flags from cars. A street party unfolded as voters left the convention center, where votes were cast because New Orleans' consulate couldn't handle the crowds. Vendors sold food and drinks to the cheering crowd.

"We're tired of the situation at home, and we've come together to make a stand for change," he said.

Alexandra Viamonte...moved to the Florida at age 17 because she saw few opportunities for higher education in Venezuela. So she moved in with an aunt while studying English and medical technology. She married a man originally from Cuba, and together they have five children. However, most of her extended family remains in Venezuela, and she fears their fate if Chavez wins another term.

Chavez, however, underestimated the resolve of voters in the U.S.

"He thought that we wouldn't drive almost 900 miles to vote, but he was wrong," she said. "We have the opposition we needed."

[http://www.chron.com/news/article/Venezuelans-to-vote-for-president-in-Louisiana-3926136.php]

As expected, Chavez has "won" the election, but I was encouraged by the attitude of these people who had to make a very long trip to cast a vote in a rigged election, especially when compared to people who would rather complain, cry racism, and file suit than make a trip to the local DMV for a free ID.