Shutdown Showdown

January 25, 2019

President Trump allowed the government to "shut down" again for the second time during his presidency, mainly due to his intransigence for a border wall in specific locations.  Democrats did not want to negotiate with him and give any political victory before the 2020 election.  So, the government was again at an impasse, which now seems to be an annual tradition. 

____________________________

The United States government had been shut down for a record 35 days.  This political farce has become a yearly event, one in which one party refuses to give any sort of political victory to the president's party that controls the White House.  When President Obama was trying to pass the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("Obamacare"), the Republicans, led by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, vowed to block any success by Mr. Obama and wanted him to serve only one term.  Subsequently, the ACA was to take effect in 2014 and the Republicans forced a shutdown in 2013 over funding for Obamacare and raising of the debt ceiling. Now, with President Trump in the White House, Democrats are riding the wave of shock, surprise, and anger of Hillary Clinton's defeat to rob Mr. Trump of any major legislative triumph in his first term.

This pattern may win political points with the ardent supporters of each party, but the long-term effects are extremely damaging to the country as a whole.  The United States government has accrued massive debt each year, and each subsequent year adds to the burden future generations of Americans will have to deal with.  Foreign governments and conglomerates who buy American debt will eventually get spooked with the precarious state of our financial health.  The constant shutdowns of our government are going to move America in a dangerous direction, and this practice has to stop.

The current mess is the result of a refusal by President Trump, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate to negotiate a settlement of policy differences relating to immigration and the building of a large border wall to restrict the illegal entering of immigrants into the United States.  The Trump administration asked initially $1.7 billion for the building of the wall but changed that amount to $7 billion.  The Democrats approved the first amount, but then balked at the larger number, which despite what the federal government spends on other programs, is a pittance. One wonders why the president did not push for the wall funding when the Republicans had control of both the House and Senate in 2017.


I suspect Speaker Pelosi and her caucus did not want to give President Trump any sort of political victory, even though the amount all parties are fighting over is trivial compared to what the federal government spends on the whole. The Democratic base hates President Trump and is very supportive of this confrontation with the President. Compounding this conflict are 800,000 federal workers who are struggling to make their mortgage, car and other payments because of their lack of a steady paycheck.  They are simply innocent players in a damaging, petty war between two political parties who grow more and more warlike in their fight with each other.  Those workers, along with the general public, continue to lose trust in American democracy and government institutions.

Recently, President Trump unveiled a proposal to protect (meaning delay) any action on so-called Dreamers (the DACA bill, which is known as the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). This would allow Dreamers, or children of undocumented immigrants, along with war-torn hopeful refugees (assigned Temporary Protected Status), a chance to live in the United States without fear of deportation for three years.  In return, the Democrat-controlled House would provide the requested funding of $5.7 billion for the border wall.  Democrats refused any consideration of this, and the government shows no signs of returning to business.  At some point, these federal workers, whose knowledge of the federal government and its intricate processes, will leave the federal workforce.  This will be an epic loss for our country. Regardless of how you feel about the government, having knowledgeable people who help a government function, one as large as ours, will not make things better.  

Conservatives have never been a fan of government, since their ideology promotes less government intrusion into the lives of citizens, and empowers those individuals to determine their futures, with religious and political viewpoints.  I feel that they are not too worried about the shutdown, which could be an excuse to see the government (and its power, basically) shrink to ineffective levels and not be a bother to Americans, especially wealthy citizens and large corporations, who want less taxation and intrusive and cumbersome regulations.  I do not share this belief.  At this time, the United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world.  It needs a strong government to administer functions of a western-style republic: provide funds for national defense, transportation infrastructure, support for education, focusing primarily on colleges and universities, effective law enforcement, a fair and ethical legal system, and opportunities for citizens in lower socio-economic backgrounds to move out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes.  

Democrats, I feel, use government too much to pander to their base by using the government to enact social engineering, such as, through laws that force companies to adhere to environmental regulations (some are good, like fuel efficiency for automobiles), and hinder corporations from their own goals, for gender and diversity agendas.

What is the best way forward from this crisis?

I think the Democrats should give President Trump his requested amount for the wall, even though it would anger their base.  If the government was open, and the Democrats were fighting Trump on other legislation, I could understand their intensity.  However, in this case, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go into debt, miss mortgage payments, not have money for food, since many of them are like most Americans, and live paycheck to paycheck.  The amount both the Democrats and President Trump are fighting over is minuscule, but the ideological victory and the voter enthusiasm that comes with it is too great to avoid for either side.  

One of the sad parts of this fight is that many intelligent people who serve their country by working as federal employees could drop and that would not serve the country well.  A federal government that is staffed by mediocre people does not bode well for the preservation of those government institutions (such as the IRS, Department of Justice, Department of Defense).  

The Democrats should play the long game. They should allow President Trump his "victory" for border wall funding because, in reality, that amount would fund the amount needed for the wall in specific high-traffic areas where border crossings were frequent. During the next two years, the Democrats can stop the majority of the president's intended agenda, including the possible nomination of a third Supreme Court Justice.  Allowing federal employees to suffer in order to deal the administration a legislative defeat that can be used against them in the 2020 presidential election year.  Focusing on the minor amount is a hill the Democrats should not die on.

As of today, January 25th, President Trump announced a deal to end the shutdown. Perhaps in the future,  a session of Congress can pass legislation to prevent government shutdowns longer than two weeks? A bill could be introduced to not pay members of Congress until the shutdown is over (like many federal workers endure) and government resumes its core functions?  That could be one way to limit the number of shutdowns every few years.  I firmly believe something good can come out of this sad episode of our democracy.

Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook?

December 18, 2018

A recent New York Times article has shown that Facebook shared its user data, especially messages to friends, to over 150 other companies, including many in Silicon Valley.  Does this new piece of information start the beginning of the end of a tech giant?

________________________________

In a recent December 2018 New York Times article (Dance, LaForia & Confessore), it was discovered that Facebook, while creating its own protective information wall, shared user data (including messages to friends) to other tech companies such as Amazon, Spotify, and Microsoft.  It comes on the heels of founder Mark Zuckerberg testifying in front of a congressional committee, regarding the alleged hijacking of its site by foreign actors trying to influence the 2016 election,  discovery of data sharing, and accusations that it censored ideas and comments by conservative personalities.  The sharing of its user data did not have the best protection and was not as strong as it could have been.  After media reporting and user backlash, this doesn't improve the perception among some, like me, that Facebook has a serious crisis on its hands that could irrevocably ruin its high trajectory and profitable business model over the past 15 years. 

Personal user data and preferences have become the 21st century's most powerful commodity, especially in the proliferation of tech companies most of which are located in Silicon Valley.  Purchasing choices are the new "black gold (oil)," which companies desperately want so they can better provide items that people want to buy. In other words, if you know what people want to purchase, a company can tailor any type of production to what is selling well. It improves efficiency, reduces costs and increases profit margins. Knowing what people have the interest to buy is the intelligence that modern companies increasingly want to gain a market edge. Facebook realized this. Since the company did not manufacture a product, it had to generate revenue somehow.  Collecting the meta-data of its users, then packaging those characteristics and selling that information to advertisers and other companies allowed Facebook to generate positive cash flow.  As a result, billions of advertising revenue comes into the bank account of Facebook, buoyed by expansive user growth.  One can understand why their users' information is so precious to the company.

The New York Times article provided insight as to how the company took advantage of this information and sold it to other large Silicon Valley companies, who then tailored it to their advantage financially as well.  Privacy was not a major issue when Facebook began its rapid rise.  Only after investigative reports and complaints from users did the company enact the way it operates, at least on the surface, to change public perception.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) created a consent agreement with the company in 2011 to structure a better model in terms of protecting user data and to not share user data without explicit permission.  The recent revelations could threaten the purported agreement with the government, but Facebook has stated through its spokespersons that all companies who enter into contracts with the company must abide by Facebook policies.

One of the most troubling aspects of Facebook's agreements with other companies is Yandex, which is a Russian search engine.  The fact that a foreign-owned company, a Russian one to boot, was allowed to extract meta-data from Facebook users is cause for immense concern.  It is not too far to imagine that the country's intelligence services were probably given access to the data that Yandex collected.  If the Democrats were concerned with Russian "meddling," then this discovery should get the Intelligence Committee in the House to go into overdrive.  If any connection is proven between Yandex and the Russian intelligence community, then it could spur Congress into more investigations into Facebook, and this could drive company stock to dangerously low levels.  It might lead to Zuckerberg's ouster as CEO.

Facebook could be a test case for privacy, data collection and informational transaction laws that will determine the level of regulation for Silicon Valley tech companies in the future.  Since the company and its founder are an American success story, some legislators could be tepid about their desire for investigations.  However, providing transparency for tech companies will give their users confidence that their data will be treated with respect, much like a person's health records.  Here are some ways Facebook can provide that comfort to their users:

1) Provide all Facebook users with an upfront method to protect their data, a list of things to do so that each individual can determine on their own what information can be viewed, what is hidden and who can access that data.  Facebook has options in "settings" that have been around, but this needs to be done through a public relations initiative or a firm specializing in privacy, and have its employees in an official company capacity provide assistance to users to make these changes.  This will give the company positive impressions amongst its legion of users, and keep open the lines of communication and to build on that relationship.

2) Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should step down from the management of the company.  Both have played an integral part in obfuscation of their intention to providing users information to outside companies and withholding those key relationships with Congress, including Mr. Zuckerberg's testimony in front of a Senate committee. Their fingerprints are on the approval of working with and sharing user data with these companies, and their resignations would send a clear signal that Facebook is serious about making significant changes in how the company's business model functions.  Additionally, both Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg should testify in front of the committee again, and be honest and candid in terms of what they did, and how they plan to make changes before their removal from day to day operations of the company.

3)  Congress should introduce legislation to regulate the powerful and influential tech sector, including protecting the free speech for everyone. These protective rules must show that popular companies in Silicon Valley must be adherent to specific and open terms of relationships with their users, and how if any information that is shared with outside firms, it must be made public and what type of information can be shared.  I believe that this type of legislation can have strong bipartisan support, and it can go a long way to show that Congress does care about the privacy of American citizens, and for those who choose to conduct business with these influential companies, especially Facebook.

I feel that Silicon Valley companies must protect their users from manipulation, unfair business practices, and treat them with respect so that their associations with these companies are valued. New rules will introduce better management of those users. Hopefully, the future will make online interactions better for everyone involved, and provide a blueprint for new and emerging companies to properly seek the business of every citizen in this country.