FORECASTS & TRENDS E-LETTER
by Gary D. Halbert
August 11, 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

1. The Debate Over Mail-In Voting: Fraught With Problems

2. Over Two-Thirds Of Unemployed Make More Than Working

The Debate Over Mail-In Voting: Fraught With Problems

As everyone reading this knows, there is a national debate over whether we should have traditional “In-Person” voting or “Mail-In” voting for this year’s presidential election. The Democrats are pressing hard for untested mail-in voting for the first time in American history — with the primary argument being it is not safe to vote in-person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Trump is insisting the election must be done with in-person voting and warns that mail-in voting could result in widespread voter fraud and a potentially lengthy delay in finalizing the vote and determining the eventual outcome.

While I believe the election should be conducted with in-person voting, as we’ve always done, I’ve done a good bit of reading on this subject over the last couple of weeks. I’ll share with you what I have found.

Let’s start with the easy one: the COVID-19 pandemic issue. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, experience shows that we can vote safely in-person as long as election officials implement the safety protocols recommended by health experts in polling places — the same protocols we are all using when we go to the grocery store, pharmacy, our jobs, etc. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released such guidelines June 22.

Even during the coronavirus pandemic that has so disrupted our lives, it would be a mistake to go to an all-mail election. Concerns that President Trump has raised about mail-in voting are based on documented problems we have seen with such voting recently.

Mail-in ballots are the most vulnerable to being altered, stolen, or forged. Just look at the current investigation going on in Paterson, New Jersey over a recent municipal election conducted entirely by mail.

Four Paterson residents have already been charged with criminal election fraud, including a city councilman and councilman-elect. Evidence is surfacing of everything from voters reporting that they never received their absentee ballots (even though they are recorded as having voted) to accusations that one of the campaigns may have submitted fraudulent ballots.

Mail-in ballots also have a much higher rejection rate than votes cast in person. In the Paterson case, election officials reportedly rejected one in five ballots for everything from signatures on the ballots not matching the signatures of voters on file, to ballots not complying with the technical rules that apply to absentee ballots.

Then there’s New York state which held its primary election using all mail-in ballots on June 23, and the winner of that race is still not known today. New York is also reporting a similar ballot rejection rate. This should be considered unacceptable by anyone believing in fair and accurate elections.

These kinds of technical problems — when a voter doesn’t provide all the information required with an absentee ballot — occur because there is no election official in people’s homes to answer their questions. At polling places, by contrast, election officials can try to remedy any problems a voter encounters. And this can be done safely, just like checking out at the store.

Then there is the problem of mail-in ballots being miscarried or not delivered by the US Postal Service. States with recent primaries, including Wisconsin and Maryland, have reported voters not receiving their ballots or not getting them in time to be completed and returned.

In addition, there have been problems with the Postal Service not postmarking ballots, making it impossible for election officials to determine whether the ballots were mailed in time to be counted. The US Election Assistance Commission says that in the last four federal elections, 2.7 million mail-in ballots were misdelivered and 1.3 million were rejected by election officials.

In the 2016 election, over 140 million Americans voted, a new record. That record is expected to be broken in 2020 with at least 150 million Americans casting votes. Does anyone really think the Postal Service will be able to suddenly handle 300 million pieces of additional mail — that is, the ballots being mailed out by election officials, and then mailed back by voters? Just from a practical standpoint, that is asking for chaos and potential mass disenfranchisement.

Inevitably, it will take longer to tabulate the results of the election if there is a massive amount of mail-in voting, particularly in close races for the presidency and down-ballot offices.

And finally, if the outcome of the election is still in doubt by January 20, 2021 — the day the Constitution says the winner of the election is supposed to be sworn into office — the 20th Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress “may by law provide…who shall then act as President.” We certainly don’t want that!

Under 3 U.S.C. § 19, Congress has provided that the Speaker of the House shall upon his or her resignation as Speaker and Representative act as President until a President or Vice President has been determined. Nancy Pelosi as President of the United States? I don’t think so!

I could go on with more problems related to mail-in voting, but I think you get the picture. Americans should insist on their right to vote in-person in their polling places in November, where they can be sure their ballots are safely received and counted.

Americans who are afraid of voting in person, and those more susceptible to COVID-19 (mainly older people) can vote using absentee ballots, as has traditionally been the case.

At the end of the day, we should stand up for our right to vote in-person — whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent. But the Democrats so hate President Trump, they’re willing to subject the country to a chaotic election if they think it will hurt his chances.

What else is new?

Over Two-Thirds Of Unemployed Make More Than Job Paid

I think it is safe to assume everyone reading this has read or heard that many of America’s unemployed are actually making more being on unemployment than they made at their previous job. What we didn’t know until recently is what percentage of unemployed Americans are making more now than at their old job. Now we do, and it’s huge!

According to the Labor Department, there were about 31 million Americans who were receiving unemployment benefits in June. That benefit includes unemployment payments from their state, plus the $600 per week ($2,400 per month) they receive from the federal government — for those who qualify — which was implemented back in March as part of the CARES Act.

At the time, I warned that the extra $600 per week would put some workers’ total unemployment benefit well above what they were making at their previous job — and thus incentivize them not to go back to work.

So, not only did we not know what percentage of the unemployed were making more than their old job paid, but we also did not know how much more they were making than their old job paid. Well, here are the numbers.

Of the 31 million receiving jobless benefits at the end of June, 68% were are making more than what their old job paid, according to the latest study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). That’s over two-thirds, or roughly 21 million, who are making more to stay at home than to go back to their old jobs.

So, how much more are they making now versus when they were working? It varies widely depending on what they were making when they lost their job. The typical retail worker can get 142% of what they had been earning at their old job, while unemployed janitors can collect on average 158% of their previous pay. Workers at even lower income levels can collect up to 200% of their former pay, this according to the latest study by NBER. Wow!

Which raises the obvious question: Why would someone making 142%, 158% or 200% of their former pay want to go back to work? No wonder many don’t want to go back to work! No wonder many employers who have reopened their businesses are having trouble getting their old employees to come back to their jobs.

While the extra $600 per week provided by the CARES Act has helped bring financial stability to impacted households, concerns abound over giving workers added incentive not to return to their jobs. While the CARES Act funding expired at the end of July, it is almost certain it will be extended in some form just ahead, likely this week.

The House of Representatives has already passed a new stimulus bill that would extend the $600 per week until the end of January next year. Last weekend, the White House proposed extending the weekly payments to the end of the year but reducing the payment to $400. The Senate hasn’t finalized its relief bill, but maybe they compromise at something like $500/wk.

If that is the case, over half of those qualifying for the bonus payments would still be making considerably more than they were being paid at their previous jobs. This means roughly 15 million Americans could remain unwilling to go back to work. This just doesn’t make sense!

The NBER study did not make specific recommendations but notes that policymakers could weigh altering the program so that unemployment compensation would stay below 100% of previous wages. Even providing an extra $300 instead of $600 still would leave 42% of all workers above full pay, the researchers calculated.

The bottom line is that while the $600/wk. CARES Act payments helped many families make it through these tough times, they are also a significant incentive not to go back to work.

We’ll see how it turns out.

Best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

The Complications of Mail-In Voting

Unemployment Benefits Exceed What Workers Made at Job

Gary's Between the Lines Blog: Reasons To Be Optimistic About America’s Future?

 

Forecasts & Trends E-Letter is published by Halbert Wealth Management, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Information contained herein is taken from sources believed to be reliable but cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy. Opinions and recommendations herein generally reflect the judgement of the named author and may change at any time without written notice. Market opinions contained herein are intended as general observations and are not intended as specific advice. Readers are urged to check with their financial counselors before making any decisions. This does not constitute an offer of sale of any securities. Halbert Wealth Management, Inc., and its affiliated companies, its officers, directors and/or employees may or may not have their own money in markets or programs mentioned herein. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. All investments have a risk of loss. Be sure to read all offering materials and disclosures before making a decision to invest. Reprinting for family or friends is allowed with proper credit. However, republishing (written or electronically) in its entirety or through the use of extensive quotes is prohibited without prior written consent.