Deficit Reduction and Tax Breaks: Rhetoric and Priorities

Actions speak louder than words. A tree is known by its fruit. Where your treasure is, therein lies your heart. These three sayings each have at their root a value on integrity or authenticity that cuts through purported assertions designed to manipulate or otherwise mislead. Integrity here is consistency between word and deed. When members of Congress have cried that the sky was falling under the weight of the annual deficits and the accumulated debt of the U.S. Government, a person might ask by looking at the actual votes on legislation whether the representatives really considered the fiscal imbalances as so dire. If someone exclaims that her house is about to explode but does not act accordingly, such as in running out of the house rather than finishing dinner, it is reasonable to doubt that the person really believes that a blast is imminent. In protecting tax breaks even amid a deficit of over $1 trillion in 2011, members of Congress belied their own warnings concerning the American governmental debt crisis. The American people as a whole let their representatives get away with the Janus-like stances, and this in turn eventually allowed the U.S. Government debt to exceed $20 trillion. 

Generally speaking, a crisis truly acknowledged does not admit the luxury of granting the status quo a continuance. In other words, if the elected officials really did view the trajectory of deficits as unsustainable in 2011, then continuing the tax breaks would have been off the table. In prioritizing protecting constituent interests by tax breaks and by insisting that deficit-reduction is only to be accomplished by spending cuts, a member of Congress is actually saying that the deficit/debt problem is not really a crisis. 

So when the U.S. Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell said in 2011 that he was open to ending tax breaks for special interests yet without including those of his constituents, he undermined his insistence that the deficit must be significantly reduced.  He argued that the tax break that he had secured in 2008 for the owners of thoroughbred racehorses was essential for the protection of jobs in Kentucky. Of course, the financial interests of racehorse owners were not necessarily in line with—or reduce to—the protection of jobs. In political diction, the interests of capital hide behind those of labor even while going after those interests in private so as to maximize profit. That is to say, subterfuge may be the name of the game in the public square. The same can be said of Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who claimed to want to eliminate tax breaks except for a proposal for a tax cut for small breweries, such as Samuel Adams in Boston. The deficits must not be such a big problem if the U.S. could afford additional tax cuts. At the time, mega-wealthy “operations like oil refineries, Hollywood productions and hedge funds have all profited” by tax breaks.[1] Tax breaks for industries in general added up to an estimated $123 billion a year—hardly chicken feed.

The “disconnect between the lawmakers’ words and deeds" reflected the hurdles that Congress and the White House faced as they looked to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the government's debt.[2] Talk of cutting tax breaks to raise money and reduce the debt had become a mantra in Washington, but it threatened sacred ground; "such breaks are a favorite tool among both Republicans and Democrats to reward supporters and economic interests in their home states.”[3] Given Fed chief Ben Bernanke's remarks on October 4, 2011 before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that even reducing the debt by $1.2 trillion would not be enough, talk of protecting favorite tax breaks undercuts any claim that the public debt is a dire problem. To be sure, obviating another recession was also on Congressional minds. However, even as he was urging Congress to act in order to avoid a double-dip recession, Bernanke said of deficit-reduction efforts, "More will be needed to achieve fiscal sustainability."[4] That is to say, the U.S. Government could lose even its AA rating. Risking this by protecting local interests is short-sighted; it is like a biker accelerating down a hill while looking only a few feet ahead. We might save a few deck chairs for weary passengers, but what about that iceberg ahead? Is anybody even looking?

I contend that we, the electorate, ought to accord claims of crisis as valid only if sacred ground is given up. “Whether any of [the tax breaks] are scrubbed from the books may ultimately prove how serious Congress is about reducing the debt.”[5] It is the price of admission, as it were, to having a legislator’s claim of a serious problem being recognized as authentic rather than as possibly just hyperbolic, attention-getting rhetoric.

Without a verifiable indication of some actual give on a sacred cow, a legislator should be told, “prove it!” regarding his or her claim on the necessity to reduce the deficit. If no such sacrifice is proffered and made, then the politician ought to be ignored as if he or she were crying wolf. Otherwise, we enable two-faced Janus behavior that undermines public confidence in the government and misleads us into being too confident that the serious problems are being solved. The American electorates as well as the media companies are perhaps too accustomed to letting our elected legislators off the hook by taking their words at face value as if they were self-validating. In the case of the U.S. Government’s continuing deficits and accumulated debt, the United States can ill-afford other priorities (even in terms of presumed GNP and job increases) coexisting antithetically with the baleful platitudes of crisis if the imbalances truly are unsustainable and a danger to the American union and its republics. That is to say, given the magnitude of the problem, the members of Congress should be held closer to account in terms of deeds matching words. Priorities, the making of which is part of the job of a legislator, should match the rhetoric in front of the cameras.

1. Ron Nixon and Eric Lichtblau, “In Debt Talks, All Tax Breaks Are Not Alike,” New York Times, October 3, 2011. 

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Jon Hilsenrath and Luca Di Leo, "Bernanke Issues Warning, Urges Action on Economy," Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011. 

5. Nixon and Lichtblau. 

Coronavirus Reveals Dysfunctional Culture in Arizona

In mid-October, 2020, when the coronavirus was again peaking in E.U. states such as France and Germany and U.S. states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico, public health experts were worried about how the upcoming flu season would interact with the new virus, especially as people gather more indoors when outside temperatures turn colder. On October 15, 2020, for instance, seven U.S. states saw record numbers of hospitalizations, according to the Covid Tracking Project, and fourteen states set records for their seven-day averages of new daily cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.[1] France and Germany had already instituted nightly curfews. On October 16, Tier 2 Restrictions went into effect in London, which include urging people to avoid public transportation. Because physical distancing is not always possible on buses, subways, and light rail, universal mask wearing was crucial. According to IHME projections at the time, universal mask wearing in general “could save the lives of more than 70,000 Americans in the next three and a half months.”[2] With New Mexico’s chief executive referring to the coronavirus situation as “the most serious emergency that New Mexico has ever faced” on October 14, it was very troubling that Arizona, which borders New Mexico, had failed to enforce laws requiring masks on public transportation. This failure is extraordinary because of the mentality behind it.
On June 19, 2020, Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, had announced mask regulations approved by the Board of Supervisors. One of the regulations reads, “All riders and operators on public transportation must wear a mask.”[3] This bore directly on the light rail and buses, which Metro Valley, the transportation authority, either ran directly or through subcontracted operating companies and Allied Security. With enforcement of the new regulation being “the responsibility of law enforcement,”[4] Metro Valley announced that it would not use its employees and subcontracted security guards to enforce the regulation. In allowing passengers to board the buses and light rail without wearing masks, Metro Valley was actually breaking the law even during the “second wave” of the virus in June, 2020. In fact, it was not uncommon to see bus drivers and security guards either not wearing masks or wearing them around their chins rather than on their mouths and noses. It was especially common to see the riders wear masks covering only the chin.
Metro Valley’s excuse for not enforcing the “requirement,” which meant allowing passengers (and employees) to be on mass transit without wearing masks even though the regulation forbid it, was that some passengers (and employees) could not wear masks due to medical conditions like asthma. Allowing this exception to break the rule overall bespoke ignorance, stinginess, and laziness. Because at risk riders could have been accommodated with the modest requirement of having their respective physicians fill out a medical form that in turn would be necessary to obtain a special medical transit ID. Medical IDs were already issued to the disabled who had a medical provider fill out Metro Valley’s medical form. The transit authority did not have to emasculate the regulation and thus the public health on account of an exception. Talking to Metro Valley supervisors, I was struck by the near obsession on the exception to the extent that I could detect no awareness of making a requirement anything but, and in so doing, violating the regulation. Small minds should not rule large companies, for the consequent harm to the public can be large.
I was thrice flabbergasted when I listened on my phone to Metro Valley customer-service employees insist that masks were required on buses and light rail and that passengers could ride without masks was not incompatible with the requirement! Declarations by ignorance that cannot be wrong have a bad odor. Such ignorance has no legitimate basis in standing on stilts above customers (or anyone). When I pointed out the obvious point that allowing maskless riders on buses and trains means that masks are not required, the standard reply was actually corrective. “Masks are required. Riders will not be turned away for not wearing masks.” How can a mind possibly hold those two thoughts together as if they were consistent? Perhaps willful ignorance enjoys being corrective because of the little bit of power that can be enjoyed—so starved for the pleasure from power is the weak bird of prey, according to Friedrich Nietzsche.
Unfortunately, neither the county sheriff’s office nor the Phoenix police (nor that of at least one suburb) felt the need to enforce the county and various city laws on masks. “You need to call Metro Valley on that,” I was told as I sought comment. Even if Metro Valley had a policy of enforcing rather than breaking the regulation (and city laws) mandating masks on public transit, it was still the responsibility of law enforcement (i.e., not a transit company) to see that the regulation (and laws) are enforced. For law-enforcement agencies of municipal governments to rely on company policies conflates governmental law with organizational policies. The lack of accountability was staggering even as the coronavirus remained as a viable threat to the public health.
The political and educational cultures in Arizona were such that efforts to enforce the regulation and correct Metro Valley’s pathetic policy were especially important. On October 17, 2020 in a conference room at a resort at Scottsdale, a suburb of Phoenix, two presenters with QAnon “went on a long diatribe against people who wear masks to prevent the spread [of coronavirus]. It’s a way to control people, and a symbol of submission, they argued.”[5] It bears stating that in 2019, Arizona had ranked 49^th out of the 50 American states on education prior to college. Unfortunately, a culture of ignorance can easily support and spread the message of QAnon in Arizona—“inventing an imaginary threat and ignoring the very real virus” in spite of all those people who had already died from the pathogen. Such a culture can also enable a vacuous “requirement” to be perpetuated as if it were really a requirement rather than an instance of reason turned against itself with impunity. In such a culture, a significant number of riders and employees, including bus drivers, can be expected to skirt their company’s policy on mask-wearing because it is a fraud anyway. Such employees need only have told their respective supervisors that a medical condition prevents the wearing of a surgical mask without any written documentation to support the validity of the claim. In such a culture, bus drivers would rather bar riders from sitting in the front half of the buses, meaning that the riders might not be able to keep apart spatially as per governmental and even Metro Valley’s own guidelines, than bother to wear masks while driving. Why could such drivers be required to wear plastic face guards if a legitimate medical reason exists for not wearing a surgical mask? Besides the culture of ignorance, one of a lack of regard for the public health (i.e., other people) is also part of the sordid culture that has been so ensconced in Arizona.

A Metro Valley employee and a rider covering their respective chins. 

Security employees exposing their noses and mouths contrary to company policy. It is no wonder that riders did so as well, or went without masks, even though they were "required."

At times, the bus rider on the right held his green towel by his teeth, as if this were equivalent to wearing a mask. Such minimalists were common on public transportation during the pandemic.

A bus driver wearing his mask to cover his chin. I called Metro Valley to report the unsafe practice, and yet two months later, the driver was still leaving his mouth and nose exposed (see photo immediately below). Moreover, the continued prevalence of drivers without masks or not wearing them correctly is an indication that Metro Valley and its subcontracted operator companies have been managerially incompetent in holding drivers accountable. The continued bad driving (e.g., stopping abruptly rather than coasting to a light already red) also points to managerial negligence. 

Two (of several) other bus drivers not wearing masks, hence violating company policy. Were they medically exempt, presumably they would be wearing face coverings instead. 

Seats being held/blocked contrary to Metro Valley's policy by drivers. A plastic divider between the drivers and the seats is supposed to be sufficient protection for the drivers. Their efforts at over-protection, incredibly even by maskless drivers, can be at the expense of passengers being able to maintain physical distance between each other. Even though restricting the seating violates company policy and the company is aware of the practice, accountability has been a problem. 

A security guard starring at me taking a picture (which is legal) perhaps to intimidate me while literally overlooking the maskless rider stretched out on three seats. Starring at innocent riders to intimidate them while ignoring infractions of train policies (e.g., lying over three seats) epitomizes the local police/security culture. 

Four security guards in one-half of a train car, and four in a train car on a routine basis. Such excessiveness intimidates paying customers and leaves other trains without any protection. This epitomizes the local police/security culture in which as many of three backup police cars are used for police giving a traffic ticket. Meanwhile, the police departments refuse to enforce the laws on mask-wearing in retail stores and on public transportation. Hence, "bipolar" aptly characterizes the culture, wherein minor matters deprioritize more important ones. 

A security employee prohibited by Metro Valley even to instruct riders how to wear masks correctly. 

Perhaps the overriding question is how such a badly managed mass transit company (including its subcontractors that operate the buses) could continue in such a condition of ineptitude. In 2019, I had shot lots of videos of aggressive bus drivers, bad driving (e.g., stomping on the brake pedal at the last minute), and excess security on some trains (hence with none in others). The city of Tempe’s Transportation director invited me to attend a meeting with Tempe’s transit director, representatives from Metro Valley and the director of one of the bus-operating subcontractor companies (First Trans) in the room. Reflecting the local culture, the director dismissed all of my videos because one of them shows speeding of only six miles-per-hour above the speed-limit. To my utter astonishment, the other people in the room let him get away with the illogical effort to invalidate all of the videos—even those showing aggressive bus drivers shouting at passengers (the drivers generally viewed their ridership as lower class than themselves, which would have to be pretty low). Tempe’s representative lied to the director, “The city of Tempe has no problem with the driving,” after only months earlier having told me that speeding is a real problem (to which I added hard braking). Perhaps bribes helped reinforce the pathetic inter-organizational culture there.
Also up for grabs is why the local law enforcement would decide not to enforce a law so relevant to the public’s safety/health, and let the mass transit company (and its contractors) violate the law by allowing passengers to ride without wearing masks. It seems that in Arizona, the local law enforcement agencies have too much discretion over which laws they will enforce. Anyone calling in a noise complaint there knows this to be true. 
Ironically, and reflective of the bipolar culture, residents in poor and middle-class areas have had to endure police departments' excess reliance on low-flying police helicopters, which have routinely interloped beyond their respective jurisdictions (such as a city helicopter flying over county land), flown outside of designated air corridors for fly-through traffic, and flown around more expensive neighborhoods.  
On the evening when I published this essay at a coffee shop, a police car passed by as I was about to go to the shopping center's parking lot, and a few minutes a police helicopter flew over diagonally. Both seemed to be on a routine basis and duplicative rather than on a coordinated search. Then a mile away, just after I had stopped at a grocery store, another police helicopter was making at least ten wide circles over a nice looking residential neighborhood before flying away. Then just before I reached my apartment, several miles away, I saw yet another police helicopter (with yet another in the distance). The next morning on my way to the coffee shop to edit this essay, I again saw a police helicopter. The local residents may be used to living in a police state, but we others are not and it doesn't take long for us to notice it on account of its excessiveness, just as we new-comers notice the proclivity of the local police departments to refuse to enforce certain laws. To be sure, surveillance and so many back-up police cars for traffic tickets do take up resources, including personnel. If half the effort were applied instead to enforcing masks on public transit when the E.U. and many U.S. Midwestern and Northeastern states were coronavirus hotspots, Arizona would have been in a better position going into the winter.  

[1] Christina Maxouris and Jason Hanna, “The US Has Reached 8 Million Covid-19 Cases, and the Pace of New Infections Signals a Tough Winter,” CNN.com, October 16, 2020.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Board Approves Mask Regulations Due to Community Spread of COVID-19,” Maricopa County Communications Office, June 19, 2020.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Donie O’Sullivan, “Analysis: A CNN Reporter Went to Two Different QAnon Events. Here’s What He Found,” CNN.com, October 19, 2020 (accessed same day).

Ruth Bader Ginsberg: Societal Change as the Mission of the U.S. Supreme Court

By chance, I watched RBG (2018), a documentary on Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a U.S. Supreme Court justice, on the day she died in 2020. Being just a month and a half before the U.S. presidential election, the sudden opening immediately became political. This is of course to be expected, given that the sitting U.S. president nominates candidates and the U.S. Senate confirms them. The role of political ideology on the bench and thus in court decisions, however, is considerably more controversial because the justices are tasked with interpreting the law rather than stitching their own ideologies into law as a means of changing society. The documentary demonstrates that changing society through law was precisely Ginsberg’s objective.

The full essay is at "RBG."

On the American Military-Industrial Complex

A democratic republic affords many avenues for organized private interests to influence public policy. The fact that such interests are organized is enough to outweigh the influenced of an organized constituency. Add in the money available to organized interests and the imbalance is exaggerated. The military industrial complex—the “informal” alliance between a military and private defense-contractors is a case in point in the United States.

At the end of his second term in 1961, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the abuses of power that can come from the military’s alliance with its defense-contractors. The influence of the alliance, in other words, could come to trump the influence of the electorate and what is in the best interests of the United States in the world. After World War II, a permanent armaments industry emerged; the president was concerned that its influence would grow too much. He said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence. . . . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”[1] Once such power exists, it can protect itself even from threats from the electorate. Such protection can be explicit, as in efforts to keep the U.S. in a war, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were quite long ones.

Roughly sixty years after Eisenhower’s farewell speech, President Trump publicly claimed that the U.S. military seeks to do the bidding of the defense contractors.[2] Such an open admission was itself startling, for the president was telling the electorate that private companies effectively control defense policy. The interests of such companies are private, and thus partial, rather than being identical to the public good, which a republic’s government is supposed to enact and protect. Where a few strong interests, whether that of the financial sector or defense contractors, can control elected representatives, a democracy can actually be a mere gloss for the books. A republic is thus vulnerable.

---

1. “President Eisenhower Warns of Military-Industrial Complex,” History.com, November 16, 2009.
2. Maeve Reston, “Trump Presses On after Rough Week with His Presidential Image in Shambles,” CNN.com, September 12, 2020.

Britain's Obsession with Sovereignty Threatens Trade Treaty with the E.U.

Months after Britain seceded from the E.U., the government of the former state went rogue in intending to pass a law that would unilaterally change, and thus violate, the terms of the post-secession trading agreement between the UK and its former union. The bill proposed no new checks on goods going from the Northern Ireland region to the other regions of the UK. Whereas the British prime minister was claiming that the full sovereignty of the former state meant that Parliament could unilaterally change the terms of a treaty, the European Commission was saying, in effect, that an agreement is an agreement. I contend that the Commission was correct. Moreover, even before the UK seceded from the European Union, an obsession on sovereignty (then, states' rights) rendered Britain vulnerable to failing to grasp the costs.  

I submit that a treaty is no longer valid if one party uses its governmental sovereignty to unilaterally alter the terms. The E.U. could have replied that if the former state passes its bill, then the trading treaty would be null and void. The UK wanted a trade treaty, so that government would have to start from nothing in negotiating a new one should that government violate the one already agreed to prior to the secession. Fortunately, the secession itself was not contingent on the post-secession trading treaty going into effect, for Britain's insistence on its full sovereignty even as the state was semi-sovereign as a state in the E.U. was problematic. 

While the UK government's insistence on its full governmental sovereignty was correct at the time the proposed bill was proposed in 2020 (i.e., after secession), the claim of full sovereign of any E.U. state, including the UK before it seceded, would be false. The rational flaw that resides in the contention that the trade treaty would still hold even if one of the parties unilaterally changes the terms is also in the contention that a state of a union can unilaterally change the terms of federal law, as South Carolina had done in the U.S. in the early 1830's. 

Put another way, whereas the British government was correct that a trading agreement going into effect after secession counts as a treaty, which a government's legislature can change because it is sovereign, to make the same claim regarding federal law in a political union would not hold. So when David Cameron claimed when Britain was an E.U. state that the E.U. was just another network of (sovereign) countries to which Britain happened to belong, he was wrong in implying that the British Parliament held full sovereignty. He was conveniently ignoring the fact that the states had delegated some sovereignty to the E.U., and that laws passed on the federal level were not treaties relative to the sovereignty retained by the state governments. 

Even though Britain was no longer a state of the E.U. in 2020 when the Parliament was considering a bill to unilaterally change what was in fact a treaty, it seems that the need to continue to emphasize sovereignty was a bit overdrawn, and not in the former state's economic interest. For just as one party to a treaty can change it unilaterally, the other party can walk away, tearing up the treaty and legitimately claim that no agreement exists. 

Corona Crisis: Unethical and Criminal Businesses and Municipal Agencies Pervade in Phoenix, Arizona

On July 7, 2020, NBC News reported that Arizona had a record number of cases (105,094) and of deaths (1,927), with a four percent daily increase in reported cases. Also, coronavirus hospitalizations and related ventilators being used were also at record highs. A reporter with MSNBC stated, “Arizona is in crisis.” On the previous day, on MSNBC television, that same reporter had said, “Arizona is in free fall,” in that the number of cases was rising so fast. It had taken three months for the first 50,000 cases and only 23 days for the next 50,000. Observing that people were not wearing masks in downtown Scottsdale, he reported that “Arizona is out of control.” People there were not taking precautions, and the local and state authorities were not on top of the crisis. On June 22, 2020, a physician with the University of Arizona-Phoenix interviewed on The 11^th Hour show on MSNBC asserted that the Arizonans who were saying, “No one is going to order me to wear a mask,” were being selfish because refusing to wear a mask, say on a bus or in a store or restaurant/bar puts other lives at risk. Also a salient ingredient of the crisis in Arizona was the anti-science contingent of the population. In an interview at the time, Alan Alda (of the TV show, MASH) pointed to “pockets of people who still think science is just another opinion” as having a mindset that “puts us all in danger.”[1] The rigors of scientific experiment, such as the use of control groups and random selection, render science closer to knowledge than are mere opinions based on ideology and a person’s own experience. Privileging one’s own ideology and experiences counts as self-embellishing, and perhaps even self-idolatry. Such people are not likely to accept knowledge that contradicts their respective opinions and experience. Living in Phoenix at the time, I had encountered a lot of anti-intellectualism and incompetence along with refusals to enforce virus-deterring policies and even laws. Just one year earlier, Arizona’s education system through High School (K-12) had been rated as 49 out of the 50 States. Combined with an ideology in which companies and individual residents should (which implies can) self-police themselves on physical-distancing and wearing face masks indoors in public and on public transportation,  the recipe is for a greater need for respirators. 

To be sure, Arizona got to the place of crisis in part because the governor had lifted the stay-at-home order and opened businesses on May 14, 2020. His choice was in line with the wishes of U.S. President Trump, who wanted a more productive U.S. economy that would facilitate the president’s re-election in the coming November. The spike in new cases began in Arizona after the governor allowed non-essential businesses, including bars, restaurants, and gyms, to reopen. Pressure from President Trump and a shared pro-business political ideology were likely factors in the Republican governor’s decision. Meanwhile, Arizona had more than its share of political ideologues who believed that business policy or a public law mandating physical distancing and mask-wearing were tyrannical overreaches even though government has a duty to keep its people safe. 

Does mandating the use of masks indoors in public constitute tyranny? Is God against public health? Are certain political ideologies blind to the health and safety of a people? Can what is generally viewed as outlandish in most democratic societies be mainstream, and thus virtually unchecked, in one particular society?

However, other salient factors leading to the crisis in Arizona as of early July are worthy of being mentioned. Such factors include the refusal of Arizonans overwhelmingly to maintain a physical distance from other people while in public—especially indoors, such as at retailers including grocery stores, department stores, and bars. Even before mid-May, when Arizona had been on lock-down, grocery store employees got away with regularly ignoring the store policies and state law on physical-distancing because neither the store managers nor public authorities (e.g., the local police, county Environmental Services dept, city government) would see that the policy or law was enforced. Store managers of two grocery chains blatantly told me that they were not enforcing their own physical-distancing policies and thus the state law. Even on July 9, 2020, when the state’s hospitals were nearing capacity from the virus, I was stunned at a Sprouts store to see neither customers nor employees paying any attention to the store’s own regularly-announced physical-distancing policy. From a business standpoint, refusing to follow or enforce a store policy goes beyond incompetence and sheer foolishness; fecklessness, I submit, was also in the mix.

Wearing masks indoors when in public became a local law in Phoenix in late June, 2020. A few days before July 4, 2020, I went to Target, a retail department-store chain, to return an item. As I entered the store, I saw a sign indicating that masks must be wore as per the local law. 

Inside the store, I asked the assistant manager helping me with the return what is done to customers who ignore the policy and law. “Oh, we can’t enforce that,” she said matter-of-factly. 

On the evening of July 4, I (stupidly) went to a bar/restaurant called Half-Moon Sports Grill for a burger. As I approached the establishment, I heard a group of customers leaving the “restaurant” wonder aloud, “No one in there is wearing a mask.” Yet I went inside anyway, though to an isolated table from which I could see the horse-shoe bar where neither masks were being worn nor physical distancing was being enforced (e.g. by spacing out the seating). The store’s policy violated the law on both counts. 

The seats had not been spaced out along the bar. Perhaps the manager was spaced out? Many people sitting at the bar and at the tables near me were not eating anything. Even actual drinking was sparse. The customers "nursing" their drinks could have removed masks to take periodic gulps or sips, as the case may be. 

Indeed, the governor had recently closed bars (and gyms) because they had been hotspots for transmission of the contagion. A waitress told me that masks were not required when people were sitting. The law, however, stated at the time that masks need not be worn while mouths are being used to eat or drink.  The manager of Half Moon must have assumed that anytime a customer is seated, he or she must be eating or drinking. This is not what I saw, and during a crisis wouldn’t it just make sense to err on the side of caution in interpreting the local law? I was especially shocked when the waitress came up to my table twice without wearing a mask; she had been walking without wearing a mask and she had apparently decided that physical distancing does not apply to herself.

So the next day, I gave the local police a tip. On a Sunday afternoon, the cops would go to the bar/restaurant to see if any violations were occurring. I offered to send the videotape I had shot inside the establishment, but the Phoenix police refused. So the matter being corrected depended on whether the bar was busy enough on a Sunday afternoon to show a violation. No one would ever guess that the matter was urgent and important; it was as if the police were oblivious to the unfolding health crisis. The police had obviously not been paying attention when the governor had only weeks early stated in a news conference that businesses refusing to enforce local and state measures would be dealt with. Instead, the police followed their typical minimalist enforcement routine. A minimalist mentality has no place during a crisis, except, it seems, in Arizona.

The local transit authority, Metro Valley Transit, already had a sordid reputation for enabling bus drivers who were hostile to paying customers and drove badly. In early July, the company showed just how incompetent it was by having signs and a company voice (phone) message indicating that masks were required on the buses and yet Oliver, a supervisor of the customer-service department, told me that because some passengers cannot wear masks for medical purposes (i.e., there were exceptions), the company was only recommending that masks be worn. That a requirement would be treated as optional because exceptions exist demonstrates gross managerial incompetence. Such incompetence (and narrow-minded rigidity) is apparently inert even to a societal crisis (e.g., sky-rocketing numbers of coronavirus cases). That is to say, more was involved than ignorance.

Masks being worn improperly, or "minimalist," quickly became popular in the Phoenix metro on the buses, with drivers looking the other way. In the photo just above, the driver had even contorted his mirror so as to see the passengers, and yet he did not even ask the passenger pictured to wear a mask in spite of there being a "Mask Are Required" ungrammatical sign facing the entry door. This is ironic, given the driver's intent to be able to watch as many passengers as possible. The pleasure of power seized at in weakness issues out in control, yet interestingly here without holding passengers accountable. 

On July 10, 2020, I was fortunate on my morning commute to be on a bus in which not only was the driver not wearing a mask, but three passengers were not too. One of them was biting down on a small towel, demonstrating that the lack of accountability on the non-enforcing drivers was particularly risky, given the willfulness and ignorance of many riders. By the same reasoning, the lax enforcement of the public-health state, county, and local (Phoenix metropolitan area) laws by police and the respective governments on not only the bus company, but also grocery and department stores and restaurants/bars bore a high health cost given the condition of the local population. 

It was bad enough that the vast majority of bus drivers were not enforcing the mask policy in spite of the local law even though signs notifying passengers (and drivers) of the requirement were on the buses. On July 10, I discovered that at least one driver didn't think his company's policy and the law pertained to him. After he let on three passengers who were not wearing masks, I called Metro Valley's customer service number. Not surprisingly, no one from the company (e.g., the driver's supervisor) bothered to call the driver during the route. That too is typical, even though the customer service employees could see to it that someone from the company immediately calls the driver, whether he or she is not wearing a mask, enforcing the policy/law, or being verbally abusive toward paying customers. In May, I had tried calling the local police on a driver who was refusing to comply with the bus company's policy on 10 riders maximum on a standard-sized bus. "You have to call the bus company," the police dispatcher told me. "But the driver is breaking the physical distancing state law," I exclaimed, utterly astonished that a private company rather than a police department would be the only enforcer of the law. "You would have to contact the bus company," I heard again. The local police also tried to avoid enforcing the local laws on nighttime noise, so I was not surprised at the push-back itself. 
During my conversation with Oliver of the bus company in early July, I mentioned the company’s voice-message and the signs specifying that masks were required. “They are wrong,” he informed me. He even said he would change the voice-message; I was not surprised at all a week later to hear the same phone-recording that masks were required. Oliver believed that he could not be wrong even though people could die as a result. So I wrote to the city of Phoenix and the local press on the conversation. Although Oliver had no reason to fear being held accountable, given the company’s squalid management cadre, I suspect that the city may have come down on the bus company for telling customers that wearing masks is merely recommended due to there being exceptions. For a week or more later, the bus company's customer service employees were no longer telling riders that drivers do not enforce what is a recommendation. Even so, drivers were still not complying, even though the company was finally taking its own signs and voice-recording seriously. 

Despite complaints from paying customers for some time on driver hostility and bad driving (e.g., abrupt stops), the management had failed to solve those two problems. In part, the drivers’ union was too strong, but the city of Phoenix and the suburbs were not good at holding the regional transit authority accountable. So I was not surprised in early July, 2020 when a bus driver became enraged when I called customer service to report that masks were not being worn by about half of the riders, and the driver was ignoring the company’s policy on the ten-passengers maximum on a regular-sized bus. With 17 riders on the bus, physical distancing was not possible, which made the non-compliance on masks particularly risky. Fortunately, the customer service representative also heard the driver’s shouts. In going after me rather than having enforced the policies (and laws) in the first place, that driver demonstrated to me why things were out of control in Arizona with regard to the pandemic. The driver was certainly out of control mentally, and his refusal not to enforce bus-company policies with impunity means that his company was out of control managerially. By implication, the city governments in the metropolitan area were falling short in holding the regional transit authority accountable.

By early July, 2020, I noticed that the riff-raff (i.e., rules don't apply to me) on the buses were developing a sub-culture wherein masks were to either not be worn at all or just cover the chin. Because the buses are so unreliable there, the riff-raff make up the vast majority of the ridership. Even so, drivers were not enforcing the mask requirement on that ridership, which one driver confided to me is generally viewed as pathetic by the drivers. Is not a refusal to enforce a requirement also pathetic? Does this not liken the drivers to their typical ridership? Signs on the buses continued to declare that the masks are mandatory, and the drivers continued to dismiss their duty to enforce that company policy. As evidence for this investigation, I took a photo of a rider as he was dozing off; he was wearing his mask to cover his chin only. 

When this passenger got off the bus, he put his bandana on even though no one else was on the sidewalk. 

As I turned back around, I saw the driver shaking one of her fingers at me as if she were scolding a child. It is legal to take pictures on the buses and light rail in Arizona, and yet the driver felt sufficiently emboldened in her refusal to enforce the policy that she called her supervisor and took a picture of me!  Rather than realize that she had failed to enforce a requirement, she directed her hostility to me. Generalizing, given all the reports of driver hostility toward passengers, the drivers who refused to enforce company policy not only felt entitled to do so, but also aggressively went after the paying customers who felt that the drivers should be held accountable because they were putting the health of those customers at risk. Sadly, given the continued bad driving and driver-hostility generally, I could conclude that the company’s management was lax (i.e., incompetent) on holding its drivers (and bus operating subcontractors) accountable.

It is interesting that at least some retail companies, bar/restaurants, and bus companies in Arizona gave up on enforcing their own respective policies (and any underpinning laws), while Airlines, libraries, medical clinics, and hospitals had no such problem. It is not surprising that NBC News would find that things are out of control in Arizona regarding the pandemic. It is ironic that such a heavily-policed state, where intimidation from a huge police show of force/presence is presumed to be the best deterrent to crime, would be so deficient on enforcement even during a crisis. Perhaps views of the national news could finally see just how pathetic the situation in Arizona really was, and likely will be for some time.

Theists, ecologists, and ethicists could agree that a pandemic taking a particularly dire toll on such a people would make sense. Theists could point to God’s disfavor on the selfishness, lack of consideration for others’ health, refusal to do one’s duty in enforcing public-health business policies and governmental laws, and hostility. The same rationale would support a variant on the Biblical story of Noah—this time with God extinguishing our species for having refused to sufficiently stave off carbon-induced climate change. Naturalists could paint a picture of a selfish, inconsiderate people being especially prone to a pandemic. Nature abhors weakness, and thus a weak people. Ethicists might say that it is just that people who refuse to enforce policies or laws protecting the public health during a crisis catch the virus themselves. Similarly, bus passengers and retail customers whose risky behavior puts others at risk could be said to deserve to suffer the plight themselves. They would doubtless disagree, and they would insist that they could not be wrong about it, as if they were gods on stilts during a flood.

1. David Hochman, “Alan Alda Is Obsessed with the Power of Science,” AARP: The Magazine, June/July, 2020.

A Tale of Two Republics: Arizona and California during the Coronavirus Pandemic

An educated and virtuous citizenry is essential for a republic to endure, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, two former U.S. presidents and rivals, agreed in an exchange of letters. Interestingly, both men died on July 4, 1826. Of course, the vote on independence had occurred on July 3, 1776 and the Declaration was signed over weeks rather than dramatically on July 4, 1776. Unfortunately, false narratives can take on a life of their own. Another example involves the U.S.'s "sun-belt" states, whose surging popularity from the 1980s at least through 2020 has masked the true conditions of the underlying cultures. Maricopa county, in which Phoenix, Arizona is located, was in the top 10 nationally for numeric increases in population from 2010 to 2020. Lest it be supposed that that county improved, a survey in July, 2019 listed Arizona as 49th out of the 50 States on elementary education (K-12th grade). 
Relatedly, Arizona's Medicaid system had a sordid reputation in terms of how well the subcontracting companies and non-profits managed themselves and were held accountable. As of 2020, Arizona still had a significant number of ideological voters who believed that Medicaid was a form of sordid socialism, which unjustly had taken the place of horrid communism. Because Medicaid had become the unwanted step-child in that political culture that still boasted that "taxes are theft," tight budgets and the State's bad education system resulted in subcontracting organizations, including medical clinics, conveniently embellishing their low-wage employees. Reports emerged of nurse-practitioners claiming to have the same training as physicians and even specialists such as psychiatrists and dermatologists, and of counselors misrepresenting themselves as being synonymous with therapists. In fact, Arizona's Medicaid tumor even reduced mental health to behavioral health so the cheaper behavior-trained counselors rather than therapists could be hired and relied upon. 
Furthermore, the organizations in Arizona receiving most or all of their funding from public-aid agencies like Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Medicaid were reputed to suffer from administrative incompetence without much accountability from either of those two government agencies. It was quite strange to read of the non-profit organizations and companies, including medical clinics, refer to themselves as agencies. Such lying with impunity also served to dissimulate any criticism of administrative incompetence. That low-class sub-culture of dependent organizations could count on the low education level in the state and its notable anti-science (and anti-intellectualism) ideology not to know better. In fact, no one would be likely to push-back on the Medicaid employees in the state who mispronounce the technocratic acronym for the state's Medicaid program, AHCCCS, as access rather than ah-kehs. In Arizona, the letter C is not hard (like a K) if an S follows, rather than just an E or I. You're wrong, ignorance that can't be wrong has the gall to say. You're wrong, I don't need to keep six-feet away from people. You're wrong, my people don't need enforceable government orders. Relative to California, we could rightly expect that Arizona would botch its management of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. 
The same ideology that compromises Medicaid at the ballot-box resists government itself, and thus any of its constraints, including physical distancing and the wearing of masks in stores. The following statement from Anthony Fauci, director of the National Center for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, applies especially to Arizona: "One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are--for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable--they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority."[1]
A poorly educated and bigoted citizenry may arrogantly dismiss the advice of public health officials like Fauci. In fact, in a local culture wherein strangers are generally known, especially to new-comers and visitors, to be noticeably aggressive in public and especially on public transportation, the ideological and/or badly educated residents may even lash out just for being asked to keep a certain distance or to put on a mask. 
At least in Phoenix, customers were not keeping six feet from each other in stores, including in the crowded grocery stores, in spite of the fact that the governor had ordered it. Employees and customers alike presumed to be immune from the store policies and the law. Both were left unenforced. From a management standpoint, this demonstrates gross incompetence, and from a Nietzschean standpoint, pathetic weakness. 

Therefore, I contend that the governor of Arizona, and the government of Phoenix, badly misjudged their own residents in March, 2020, especially in relying on businesses to enforce the governor's physical-distancing order on customers and even the managers' own employees. As against offenders generally, the governor left the physical-distancing order unenforceable! Nietzsche would say that such power is borne out of weakness. Even the governor's stay-at-home order was stated at the outset to be unenforceable. Issuing an executive order and saying that it will not be enforced turned the order into a guideline--something that was too weak for the ideologically anti-government residents (and there were many) in the Phoenix metropolitan area. It is my right to stand where I want, even if it means that I or other people get sick as a result. As Matt Shumway put it on Twitter, "No dog muzzles here. I value freedom and the U.S. Constitution as opposed to tyranny and rolling over and obeying simply because I'm told without questioning the narrative." Matt and many other Arizonans were not bothering to maintain a reasonable distance from other shoppers in stores, and the managers were looking the other way in spite of the governor's order. With such exaggeration and callous selfishness being a significant feature of the political culture there, only a foolish governor would place his reliance on the people to self-govern, or willingly enforce the order.  
As yet another data-point, a significant number of local bus drivers were ignoring the city council's guideline of a maximum of ten passengers on a regular-length bus. Why issue a health measure as a guideline when it is reasonable to assume that drivers of the sordid local bus company would abuse their driver discretion rather than regulate even unwilling passengers? Some of the local-creeper bus drivers, who were known generally to be hostile to their riff-raff ridership, used their discretion during the month of March (before the hot months!) to close all of the window-slits. Apparently those drivers did not believe in disbursing any virus enclosed onboard in the air. Ignorance and power, a toxic cocktail that is endemic in Arizona, do not exactly form a united front in combating a pandemic. In fact, viruses do remarkably well in dysfunctional cultures because the people are not adequately protected, given their conditions. Not even the local police were maintaining 6-feet on non-emergency (e.g., noise complaints) calls for service. 

California's government was more pro-active (and thus sensible) in March. The governor knew that enforcement of public-health measures is important even where the population is reasonably educated and not out to protest government measures even against a dangerous pathogen as instances of tyranny. Ironically, that government could have relied more on its people and companies than Arizona's government could have, and yet California's had the common sense to know that given the health threat, enforcement would still be needed. 
In early March, California health officials were urging companies (esp. tech) to have employees work from home, companies such as  Google, Apple, and Facebook complied, as did their respective employees. There was a general sense that this was important, and people listened.[2] In other words, people were being responsible. This suggests that they were capable of self-governing themselves, and they were sufficiently mature to recognize that they were not being subject to unconstitutional government control and thus did not need to feel the need to fight back by deliberately not complying. What a difference a border makes! 

Unlike Arizona’s stay at home order which came later and without enforcement, California’s first shelter-in-place order that applied first to a wide swath of Northern California including the Bay Area on March 16, came with enforcement. The California-wide order was issued on March 19; Californians could “not leave home except for essential things such as food, prescriptions, health care and commuting to jobs considered crucial.”[3] Crucially, this order was enforced too. Generally speaking, in issuing orders in a timely manner and enforcing them, California’s government was being responsible in being realistic, which is important even if people take the matter seriously.

To be sure, California was rapidly becoming a “hot spot” for the virus, whereas Arizona was not so designated. That California’s order was “one of the most draconian at the time,” hence exceeding measures in New York City, another hot-spot, suggests that the California Government was acting responsibly, even making the important assumption that enforcement would be needed even though people were taking it seriously. “Why people are praising San Francisco,” the mayor there said, “is because everyone here knew how important it was to follow instructions.”[4] Such maturity is essential for a properly working governmental system based on self-governance (i.e., the People over its government).
Whereas businesses in California undertook to enforce the distancing and lower maximum occupancy limits, store managers in the Phoenix metro area were openly admitting that they would not enforce even the store's own policies, even those that dovetailed with the governor's executive order (e.g., physical distancing). Managers of grocery stores refused even to enforce the policy (and law) on their own carefree employees. 
So in March, 2020, I predicted that Arizona would become a hot-spot. Certainly by mid-June, this had come to pass. In that month, Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was still advising Americans to follow physical-distancing recommendations and wear masks in public, which includes in stores. As of June 13th, at least 13 States, including Arizona, were showing an upward trend in average daily cases--an increase of at least 10%--over "the previous seven days, according to an analysis of John Hopkins University data."[5] As in March, April, and May in Phoenix, I saw little if any physical distancing at the time in public, including on sidewalks and inside stores. 
A survey by the CDC released on June 12th indicates that close to 80% of Americans had self-isolated in May, and 74% had worn face-masks in public either always or often.[5] Arizona opened for business on May 15th in line with President Trump's wishes, whereas California's governor was more cautious. So the percentage of residents in the Phoenix metro who self-isolated could not have been anywhere near 80 percent. Judging from the stores, I would estimate that less than half of the people were wearing masks. Even this might be an over-estimate, considering that Arizona had more than its share of people who refused to weak masks out of an anti-government-control political ideology. Viruses do not walk around such ideologies. In fact, such people put themselves at risk to make political points. This is why I brought in the poor condition of primary education in Arizona. The anti-professional bias, also very much extant in the middle and lower socio-economic classes in Arizona, undoubtedly played a role in the dismissiveness of even the guidelines. 
In fact, if we can assume that the people nationally who were self-isolating and wearing masks in public in May were also careful to keep at a distance from other people in stores as well as in public otherwise, the practically non-existent physical-distancing being practiced in Phoenix contrary to the governor's order suggests that even in this respect Arizonans (including the store managers and employees!) were falling short relative to the national percentages. Hence Gov. Ducey's ineffectual approach, which included his faulty trust that businesses would enforce at least their own policies on not only customers, but also employees. At a press conference on June 17th, the governor declared that the virus was spiking again, and that he would leave it to the local governments whether to require face masks  . In his tone as he reminded businesses that they would be held accountable, I contend he subtly acknowledged that businesses such as grocery stores had not complied to his physical-distancing executive order in March and still in effect in June. I wonder if he realized just how pathetically many of his citizens had taken his heed on distancing. Arizona is not California, either in terms of citizenry or governance.

---

1. Jacqueline Howard and Veronica Stracqualursi," Fauci Warns of 'Anti-Science Bias' Being a Problem in US," CNN.com, June 18, 2020.
2. Ray Sanchez and Dan Simon, “What California Is Doing Right in Responding to the Coronavirus Pandemic,” CNN.com, April 3, 2020.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.
5. Madeline Holcombe, "Fauci Says Second Wave is 'Not Inevitable' as Coronavirus Cases Climb in Some States," CNN.com, June 13, 2020.
6. Ibid.