Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Moment Of Truth Draws Nigh – What Will You Do?

The tendency to oversimplify complex questions has brought us to the brink of a monumental decision being driven for, apparently, millions of voters by a frightful distortion of the essential issue to be decided. The central question is: which candidate is the most competent to assume responsibility for the leadership of the United States and, in many respects, the leadership of the Free World.

The United States government is likely the most complex institution in the world. The position of President has rightly been called the most difficult job in the world.

Consider a few facts. The U.S. government consists of three main branches: Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. There are 15 Cabinet level positions, hundreds of independent agencies and commissions (for example: CIA, NASA, FCC, SBA, FERC, FRB, SEC, EPA, NLRB, EEOC, Director of National Intelligence, NTSB, FTC and on and on). In addition, the government is partly comprised of federal corporations with far reaching responsibility (for example, Tennessee Valley Authority, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, USPS, FDIC, Export-Import Bank).

The Executive Branch, led directly by the President, interacts with all of those and has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the country’s foreign relations, including, with some limitations such as formal declarations of war, the use of the vast military power of the United States.

No one, I suggest, would build a for-profit company that resembles the structure and responsibilities of the U.S. government, even if, somehow, that company could be vested with the power to tax citizens and to spend money on programs that have no immediate potential for return on investment. Fundamentally, government is different from a business, precisely because its functions are political and social in nature. Moreover, the argument that the government needs a good dose of “business thinking” fails because the reality is that the government employs many successful business executives in leadership posts and as advisors to the President. There is no shortage of inputs from the business community on any important question. The head of government does not have to be a businessperson in order to consider business advice or to apply business principles when they are appropriate.

You wouldn’t, I hope, ask a car mechanic to fix a broken tooth, and you likely wouldn’t think it wise to hire a 12-year old to run a multi-trillion dollar company.

Consider then, if you will, the type of person and the qualifications needed to lead such a complex government, constrained as the President always is by the Congress and the Judiciary, in a world that is rapidly being transformed by technologies that were science fiction a few decades ago and in which we face multiple global and in some cases existential threats from around the world.

One candidate is a businessperson whose experience is real estate development and being a TV celebrity. He is a very wealthy man, but acquiring vast riches is not a qualification for leader of the government. The other candidate has 30 years of experience in public life, including actual time in government, including terms as a U.S. Senator and in a Cabinet-level position. [I am aware that there is also a Libertarian Party candidate and a Green Party candidate, but neither has a snowball’s chance of election and I will not consider them further. Given our current voting system in which each citizen casts one vote for one person for each office, these parties represent only the potential for distortion and election of the weaker major party candidate.]

The businessperson-candidate has an admitted consistent pattern of bankrupting companies to escape paying debts, taxes and obligations to employees and contractors, who brags that this use of what the law allows “makes me smart.” The other candidate has a consistent and very long standing history of trying to improve the lot of children, women, working people and, in general, members of the lower and middle classes.

These considerations would, by most rational assessments weigh overwhelmingly in favor of the candidate who has actually been in government. But there is that issue of “trustworthiness” that keeps coming up in connection with Hillary Clinton. From her earliest days in political life as a feminist and aggressive supporter of the rights of children, she has been under relentless attack. A weaker person would likely have given up in the face of constant hostile scrutiny that has plagued her every move. All that said, however, Ms. Clinton could have been better at building a persona of trustworthiness than she has. But that concession to the anti-Clinton story line does not mean that she is unworthy of the Presidency.

On the contrary, consider if you will, the trustworthiness of Donald Trump. On any scale of truthfulness, Trump fails completely. Numerous neutral “fact checkers” have analyzed each of the candidates on multiple occasions and Trump breaks all records for lying and cheating, not to mention crassness, ill temperament and childish and offensive behavior. If it’s convenient, he simply denies that he said or did what the public record of video and audio proves otherwise. Like the child who didn’t turn in his homework, Trump just throws a tantrum and keeps on denying. Or he just changes to another position, then flips back to the original whenever he feels like pandering to his adoring crowds. On any reasonable analysis, there is no way that Trump comes out ahead on any index of trustworthiness.

But what about contributions to the Clinton Foundation being used to gain access to the Secretary of State, even if true, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone, and in particular Secretary Clinton, benefited personally or inappropriately. There is abundant evidence that the Clinton Foundation has helped hundreds of thousands of children and adults around the world. Regarding the access question, people who think this is important should look closely at how politics is practiced in their own statehouse by leaders on both sides of the aisle. There is simply no plausible basis to believe that “access” will play a lesser role in a Trump administration. The idea is downright silly.

But what about the private email server that Secretary Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State? There is little doubt that the use of such a server for official emails was an ill-considered decision and Ms. Clinton has acknowledged that. Repeatedly. Despite exhaustive review, however, there is no evidence that the decision resulted in actual loss of secrecy of any classified material. In fact, it has been acknowledged that a private line was used when General Colin Powell was Secretary of State. That differed from a private server but General Powell’s published emails make clear he intended to avoid use of the State Department’s antiquated systems. No one to my knowledge has questioned General Powell’s loyalty.

In addition to the relentless Trump attacks, based on no evidence – mainly just name calling and unsubstantiated rumor mongering – the leadership of the Republican party has now made clear that if Clinton is elected, they intend by every means at their disposal to undermine her presidency. That, I suggest, is a far more serious threat to our democracy, a direct threat to the functioning of our government, than anything Hillary Clinton ever did. It should be repudiated at the ballot box by giving Clinton a resounding victory.

The question for readers of this post is: what will you do in the few remaining days before Election Day to share with friends and colleagues the message about what is at stake in this election and to urge them to reject the Trump attacks on decency, common sense and political reality? And how will you explain to your children and grandchildren who will want to know if Trump’s behavior as a candidate is acceptable? Time is short.

DING DING DING — LESSONS OF THE TRUMP-KAHN EPISODE: TRUMP OUT COLD IN FIRST ROUND

If the 2016 presidential race were a boxing match, Donald Trump would be spread-eagled on the canvas, blood running from his broken teeth … or wherever … having knocked himself out with a roundhouse punch to his own mouth in mid-screech. And his handlers would not be trying to revive him – they would be slinking out the side of the arena. Unfortunately, the race is not a sporting event but the real thing, a process intended to elect the political leader of the United States Government, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military and the leader of the Free World.

The latest firestorm surrounding the presidential campaign of Donald Trump derives from Trump’s reaction to the appearance of Mr. Khizr Khan and his wife, Ghazala Kahn, at the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Kahn spoke about the death of their son, a Muslim who was a captain in the U.S. Army killed in combat in Iraq in 2004. He criticized Donald Trump and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Mr. Kahn’s brief statement can be read at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-text-khizr-khans-speech-2016-democratic-national/story?id=41043609.

Trump implied that Mr. Kahn’s remarks were written by the Clinton campaign staff, implying that the grieving parents were stooges for Clinton saying what they were told to say. He also attacked Mrs. Kahn who said nothing at all on the DNC stage. Using a favorite meme of his, Trump said “plenty of people have said” that Mrs. Kahn wasn’t allowed to speak, a claim she later refuted. In response to Mr. Khan’s statement that Trump had sacrificed “nothing” and “no one,” Trump, when later directly asked about the sacrifices he claims to have made, said “I’ve made a lot of sacrifices,” citing the many people employed in his businesses and his claimed (but as yet not verified) contributions to veteran’s organizations.

This approach is a common Trump tactic: purporting to be reporting what other people have said while denying that he is adopting their statements as his own. This tactic reminds many of us of the old political semi-joke in which a politician repeats in every stump speech: “I will not be associated with the rumors being spread by others that my opponent is a communist sympathizer/wife beater/traitor/you name it.”

In his attack on the Kahns, Trump saw no inconsistency in having Patricia Smith, aggrieved mother of a victim of the Benghazi attack, appear at the Republican National Convention and directly blame Hillary Clinton for the death of her son while calling for Clinton’s imprisonment. Nor did Trump see inconsistency in having two members of the so-called Benghazi Annex Security Team accuse the State Department security agents of abandoning the Security Team to their own defense, using words like “ass” and “tampon” for what they thought was humorous effect, and claiming that the four men killed would have survived but for Hillary Clinton who somehow had left Americans behind to die. Their co-sourcing of the book “13 hours” was, of course, mentioned at the outset. One wonders if Trump is getting a cut of the book and movie royalties. I’m not saying he is, but others may be asking the same question.

More seriously, Trump’s response to the Kahn appearance raises several important questions. While Trump is, of course, as free as any politician to push back against people who challenge his candidacy, there is the matter of what is revealed by his decision to attack the authenticity of the parents of a Bronze Star-awarded American soldier who died trying to protect the men under his command. One would expect a presidential candidate, knowing the issue of Mr. Kahn’s statements would come up again, would consult with key family and campaign advisors, in this case Melania and Ivanka Trump and his campaign managers, regarding the appropriate response.

If Trump did consult them and they agreed that attacking the Kahns was a smart approach, this would be strong evidence that Trump’s instant retaliation against all critics is now official policy of the Trump campaign with full buy-in from his core team. And that they are rank amateurs.

If, on the other hand, Trump did not consult his campaign leadership team, or did and chose to ignore their advice, then we have raised again the gravest concerns about Trump’s temperament and personal discipline in the face of even minor adversity. Really, how much harm to Trump’s ambitions would the Kahns have been if Trump had simply ignored them? Compare Ms. Clinton’s reaction to the personally insulting accusations that she essentially murdered Ms. Smith’s son. Trump is more like a school-yard bully who can tolerate no challenge to his standing, no matter how trivial. His striking out at everyone he sees as an adversary seems to be automatic and uncontrollable. Any doubts that this is the one and true Trump should by now have been laid to rest. Some of us are reminded of Richard Nixon.

CNN reported that Trump “has again put leaders of his own party in a no win position …. Once again they have been forced to choose between rebuking a nominee who destroyed the most talented GOP primary field in a generation and won the votes of millions of Republicans they need to show up in November or of tarnishing their own political brands. That’s why, when House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell issued statements on Sunday, they implicitly condemned Trump’s comments but did not mention their nominee by name.”  http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-ukraine/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

What does this mean — the repeated unwillingness of top Republican leadership to reject Trump’s out-of-control approach to politics? This repeated equivocation in the face of Trump’s attacks suggests that Republican leadership is prepared to endure any offense to the common weal in order to protect their political flank. If, as some data suggests, Trump’s seat-of-the-pants flying-blind behavior is not eroding his support among the Republican far-right, Republican leadership may yet be banking on salvaging enough Congressional seats, and possibly even the presidency itself, regardless of the damage to the nation’s economy, culture and international standing. This is cynicism and “party above country” in its purest and most egregious form.

John McCain, previously the target of a Trump attack on his heroism due to his having been captured in Vietnam, could not find coherence in his response, try though he did: “In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service,” McCain wrote. “I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”

Err…Senator McCain, Donald Trump is a Republican Party candidate. Top of the ticket. You cannot have it both ways, saying that Trump is wrong and that, simultaneously, his statements do not represent the views of the party that nominated him. The Republican Party that you refer to as “our” is in reality “his” and most of the leaders of that party are placing the party and their perceived self-interest above that of the country when they refuse to repudiate him and wash their hands of his campaign.

The Chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Preibus, said: “We don’t go there, and I don’t go there. Donald Trump is going to speak for Donald Trump. I mean, he wants to defend himself, and it’s understandable. But look, like I said before, this is a family that is grieving and they have a right to and we have an obligation to honor them and to love them and to cherish them. That’s where I come from; that’s where our party comes from.”

That is in fact not where the Republican Party is coming from. It nominated Trump quite handily and joyfully and must now accept the consequences of what it has done. No amount of sidestepping can escape the problem that Trump’s personality, well known and fully on display throughout the primaries, has created.

No doubt inspired by the adverse coverage of his doubled-down attack on the Kahns, Trump also lashed out at CNN, claiming that it was slanting the news in favor of Hillary Clinton. This is ironic in light of the near-constant CNN coverage of Trump’s every word and move throughout the primaries. Again, shades of Richard Nixon’s enemies lists.

Attacking the media has never been considered a smart political strategy, but Trump has defied most of the “rules” of politics and gotten away with it so far. No doubt this time he was angry that Fareed Zakaria, host of a CNN news analysis show, derided Trump for saying Russian President Vladimir Putin “is not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,” when Russia has been in the Crimea since 2014. Trump later claimed that he really meant Russia would not try to move on Ukraine if he became president. Another gaffe demonstrating how little Trump, who says he has never had time for books, actually knows about the international political scene.

The bigger question, of course, is whether any of Trump’s gaffes actually hurt him with his supporters. Much press commentary suggests that the attack on the Kahns may have been a bridge too far, while attacks on the media will continue to charm his political base. It’s too early to tell, but for anyone seriously and rationally thinking about the qualities needed in the person who is President of the United States, Trump’s performance in the Kahn episode should be causing sleepless nights.

The American Killing Fields

The eulogies are finished … for now. The President has spoken in his customary way of the pain of millions at the problem of racial conflict that is at heart of the shootings of black men by police and the retaliatory murders of police by black men. That is not to say that there are no police shootings of white men. There certainly are. But the data showing endemic racial profiling of black men (and women) appear incontrovertible.

The data cannot be explained away by arguing that since black men commit more crimes, it is only natural that they would be stopped, frisked, arrested and, yes, shot, disproportionately to their presence in the population. The excessive stopping, physical assaulting and shooting do not always take place in crime-ridden poor black neighborhoods. Day after day, black men of substantial roles in communities across the country — black doctors, black lawyers, black pastors and black businessmen — recount stories of traffic stops and hostile and threatening police interrogations, often covering spans of many years. No, the data cannot be explained away with “what do you expect from “people like that?”

It is a form of collective and deliberate blindness to reality to deny the facts showing discrimination in our law enforcement and judicial systems. It is also evident in many of the videos that circulate after each episode that people sometimes react verbally in challenging ways that in turn lead to strong physical reactions from police. There is plenty of “blame” and “fault” to go around.

This is not a problem that just happened in the past few years. It has been with us since the founding of the country. Tolerance is a great American virtue but we as a society have tolerated evil actions that have repressed massive numbers of Americans for a very long time.

Where did all this begin? You can trace the tribalism of the population back the era of the “divine right of kings” or beyond, if you like. For our purposes, though, perhaps the colonization of America is as good a starting place as any. The original settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution and immediately set up their own systems of discrimination. In the beginning, not everyone was equal. And it has been ever thus.

The men who rebelled against the British Crown and led the way to the creation of the United States were mostly white aristocrats and intellectuals. They had no intention of giving the vote to women, for example. Enslavement of black people from Africa under the most barbaric conditions became a central timber holding up the economy of the country, especially in the “south.” And despite the horrors of the Civil War, , Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws, it was not until 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, that the Supreme Court of the United States could get its collective mind around the idea that “separate but equal” education was unconstitutional. In my junior high history class in 1950s Memphis, the Civil War was still taught as “not about slavery;” slavery could not even be discussed in class.

Desegregation of the schools “with all deliberate speed,” turned out to be a long term intractable problem over much of the United States. For those who want a “Cliff Notes” style refresher on the aftermath, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education, which is a decent summary.

The Brown decision was followed by, among many other signs of white resistance to equalization of educational opportunity, the rejection of the law of the land by the then governor of Alabama, declaring in his 1963 inauguration speech the following words:

“Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom- loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.” [emphasis added]

The speech is all the more astonishing because of its blatant appropriation and reversal of the very symbols of slavery in phrases like: “tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South.”  Governor Wallace was not interested in a serious discussion of whose chains were clanking on whom. Additional parts of the address may be seen at http://www.blackpast.org/1963-george-wallace-segregation-now-segregation-forever. Governor Wallace had many supporters for his racist creed within, and far from, Alabama. Many Americans still believe in it, though most will likely deny it if asked directly.

The difficulty of bringing America into a post-racial status is illustrated by the fact that, after Brown, another eleven years passed before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted, to, among other things, enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution that had been adopted in 1870 following, by half a decade, the end of the Civil War, which, I say again, was taught in my Memphis junior high as “not about slavery.”

So, without belaboring the details, the oppression of black people in America continued apace, resulting in geographically isolated black neighborhoods, denial of access to capital, underperforming and under-resourced schools, susceptibility to drugs and all that accompanies them, including constant violence and a staggering number of broken families. When I moved to the Virginia suburbs of the nation’s capitol in the late 1960s, racial discrimination in housing was still openly practiced.

Who is responsible for this situation? I suggest the answer is: everyone. The normal post-slaughter cries for better police hiring practices, better training, more “community policing,” more “transparency and accountability” and similar palliatives are, of course, good steps to take. Each will help to some degree. But they do not go the heart of the matter, to the true roots of the racial crisis that has enveloped the United States from coast to coast, north and south, affecting every place and every citizen. Everyone who thinks about it in a reasonably deep way is concerned if not outright afraid. Until we address the root of the problem, the evil virus of racial conflict will continue to fester and grow.

To some degree, everyone who has supported, through action, word or silence the continuation of the attitudes of white racial superiority is responsible. Everyone who looked the other way in the face of blatant job discrimination all around them. As the super-rich Republican children of Donald Trump remind us, there were plenty of obstacles for the immigrant families of other ethnicities who came to this country seeking a better way of life. But it is no exaggeration to state that the obstacles placed in the path of black people, including both legal, institutional and cultural barriers, far exceeded anything, in both depth and duration, that other ethnic or racial groups faced.

And, yes, as they also remind us, there are plenty of examples of black people and other racial/ethnic minorities who were individually able to rise above the obstacles and participate in the “American dream.” But the rush to cite the examples of “my hard working immigrant parents and grandparents” is itself evidence of the racism that is eating away at the fabric of our society. The success stories are heartwarming and play well to crowds in the conventions, but as a percentage of the lives lost to race-based obstacles to personal growth and achievement, they are all but meaningless. The fact that a relative handful made it out of the swamp of educational, social and economic deprivation says nothing at all about the vastly larger number who drowned in the quicksand sucking at their lives from birth.

We are now where we are. We can continue to wish for a better tomorrow while the killing goes on, while the deprivation of opportunity and the ravages of crime and indifference to poverty continue to erode the fabric of the country. Hope, as the saying goes, springs eternal. But I suggest something more profound is required and it likely must start with a kind of overt confession of white responsibility for the history that has brought us to this state.

I have no easy answer as to how to promote culture change in these circumstances. Many billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent over the years by right-thinking people and organizations, including the federal government, trying to defeat the forces that drag down minority people, primarily black but also now Hispanics that have come to the U.S. seeking a better life than their failed countries can provide. Ironically, and Donald Trump notwithstanding, America is still seen as the “land of opportunity” by people who know what real lack of opportunity looks like. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is the tenacity of the idea that there is still a possibility of racial reconciliation and that truth and justice will indeed be the American way.

But if we do not start by accepting the harsh truth about ourselves and our history, we are unlikely to progress. The National Rifle Association’s mantra of “arm everyone” seems more a prescription for preparing for racial war that a solution to crimes against humanity that have led to our violent and distorted society.

The solution, if there is one, must be found in changing the arc of our history. Enthusiasts for religion should look at what their religion expects of them. I doubt they will find much support for the Republican mantra of “I will work hard, and get as much stuff for me as possible and too bad for those that can’t compete with me.” Humanists will start somewhere else but inevitably must arrive at the same place, recognizing that the educational and cultural divide in this country is not sustainable.

We are at an important crossroads in that one of the two political parties that have a chance to produce the next leader of the United States and the Free World is presenting the country with someone who, while talking much about restoring greatness, defined essentially as American superiority over everyone else, is selling an image of a bygone and unrecoverable day to people who feel threatened by the changes that technology and globalization have wrought. Most of what this candidate has presented as policy and platform is based on outright fabrications, but his followers, proponents of American Nationalism, don’t care that his public persona is often out of control, running on ego fumes and indifferent to the concerns of, I believe, a significant majority of Americans. When challenged regarding his epithetical comments about Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, disabled people, women, among others, he typically doubles down on his contempt. His “commentators” on the “news” shows like CNN, constantly rationalize, reinterpret and recast his statements to reveal the “true Trump” with fantasmagorical distortions of “what he really meant.”

Trump’s acceptance speech last week, as clearly as anything before, represents a throwing down of a gauntlet to the rest of the world – a Trump administration will put “America First” and the rest of you can take a place in the queue. That a large number of Americans appear to be believe that this is a viable approach to international affairs, and that it will be accepted by other nations who are supposedly allied with us, is perhaps testimony to the failure of education in more places than the inner cities. The essential concept behind Trump’s foreign, and domestic, policy approach is that the government of the United States will force its will on everyone else. It will wall off its southern border, forcibly deport millions of people, wipe out the armies of ISIS, add new barriers to entry into the United States, increase intelligence gathering against huge sectors of the general population while, simultaneously, allowing the states to decide their own parochial and discriminatory education policies. Trump’s legion of supporters cheer at his every off-the-wall comment, applauding his willingness to say the unspeakable while often claiming that “he really doesn’t mean it, but I love that he’s saying it when no one else will.”

If Trump is truly giving voice to a new “silent majority” who believe that the past can be restored, the United States is in a deeply perilous state. Not for the reasons Trump recited in his convention acceptance speech, but because it portends an attempt to restore a society whose foundations were rife with inequity and that will be out of touch will the major influences of a 21st century world.

Where we go from here, I am not sure. I am pretty sure that the country is in more trouble than is widely recognized. Putting aside the astounding loss of productivity that massive poverty in the black community has stripped from the country, and putting aside the unknown but certainly real losses of serious genius among the oppressed population whose young often never have a real chance to rise above their circumstances, a condition of systematic repression of a massive segment of the population cannot endure indefinitely. We would all do well to remember the words of Shakespeare, in a different context, at the end of Romeo & Juliet:

“See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,

That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!

And I, for winking at your discords, too

Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.”

Renter’s Insurance — Does a Better Credit Score Make You Less Likely to Make a Claim?

I recently, and for the first time, experienced an insurance company (with whom I have long experience) tell me that my premium depended, in part, on my credit score. I called to inquire into the basis for the connection between those two seemingly independent questions. The explanation tracked what I later found onohmyapt.apartmentratings.com, where this appears:The logic behind using credit ratings, according to insurers, is that those who default on debt are more likely to make claims.”   Indeed, Liberty Mutual (not my insurer) candidly states this:While insurance scores predict insurance losses, credit scores predict credit delinquency. Both are calculated from information in a credit report ….”

I challenged the idea that my credit score, which is very good, was relevant to my insurance premium because the premium was to be paid in advance in order to obtain any insurance on my property. So credit and “delinquency” would appear to be irrelevant to what I should pay for protection against loss of personal property from external forces. The response from Travelers was essentially “that’s how we do it, so take or leave it.”

Remarkably, I believe, Liberty Mutual says this in its Q&A about the relationship between credit scores and insurance premiums: “I have an excellent credit rating; does this mean I qualify for the best insurance premium?
That depends. [my emphasis] Since insurance scores measure items related to insurance losses and credit scores measure creditworthiness, these scores may be very different. Items on a credit report considered by an insurance company may not be ones considered by a lender. Likewise, there may be items on a credit report used by a lender that are not relevant to an insurer. …. For your homeowner premium, insurers may consider prior loss history, construction type, distance to fire stations and fire hydrants, and presence of protective devices such as smoke detectors, theft alarms, and deadbolt locks. State laws and regulations also vary, so the factors insurers may use to calculate premium or determine eligibility may differ by state.”

What is missing from the answer is the explanation of why credit rating has anything real to do with the likelihood or size of a claim, which would seem to be the sole issue to be determined.

This may be a small part of a larger question related to the extent to which data about an individual is algorithmically evaluated to determine the commercial practices of firms performing essential services for large numbers of consumers. It is not beyond imagining that companies could, for example, be connecting low economic status with trustworthiness. I make so such claim about rental insurance companies. The key point is that If such data connections are being made, they should at least be made completely transparent upfront, so that consumers understand exactly what is going on and why. This is especially true when the correlations may be sound but causality is not proven. Transparency would enable shoppers in all areas to better assess their choices and would improve the competitive forces that lead good companies to treat their customers with respect.

Bank to Customer: Your payment may have been canceled

Had an interesting interaction with Wells Fargo the other day.  When I logged into my online bank account to check a bill payment, a message appeared telling me Wells Fargo had changed its Bill Pay process.  Effective two days prior to my logging in “consumer credit cards cannot be used as a payment account for Bill Pay.”  The message later clarified that “if you are using a consumer credit card to fund Bill Pay payments, you will need to choose another payment account or your payment will be canceled.”

I don’t question that the bank has the right to stop accepting credit cards as payment vehicles for its online Bill Pay service, but the idea that it could do this without formal notice users of the online banking service is disturbing.  When I called to inquire about the precise meaning of the message and to raise the issue of lack of notice, the voice-from-India (wild guess on my part, based on accent) told me that she apologized, but that was it.

Remarkable.