Hopes and Expectations - Gratitude and Entitlement

Hopes and Expectations - Gratitude and Entitlement

A few years ago, comedian Lewis Black had a routine about our expectations. The upshot was that we should start lowering our expectations.

We should lower our expectations of our elected representatives with Congress hitting a new low of 9% approval rating. Rather than serve the public, many politicians want to serve their party even if it hurts the country as a whole.

We have been forced to lower our expectations of organized religion with years of revelations about the corruption of the Catholic Church and the violent misunderstanding of Islam by millions of its believers.

We have been forced to lower our expectations about our banking sector after the unbridled greed of Wall Street traders led to the near collapse of our economy in 2008.

We have been disappointed in our public education system, losing our confidence that students will get an excellent education that will prepare them to succeed in the future. It seems that families that can afford it are putting their children in private or parochial schools rather than having them suffer through years of inadequate education.

We have had expectations of our mainstream media. We expected them to be objective, thorough and responsible. Instead we find subjective, sensationalist and superficial reporting. We didn’t expect stories to drag on daily for weeks and months with the very coverage inciting the news segment. Coverage of the four month-long protest riots in St. Louis is just the latest example. It’s as though the press is saying “giving us more dirt for our report. The more outlandish the better, the longer the better.”

And it’s gotten down to the individual level. We have been disappointed by our colleagues, employers, friends, acquaintances and family members. Promises are broken and truth gets lost in the shuffle. It seems that we no longer know what to expect or whom to trust.

A recent poll taken by the media, asked Americans if they still believe in the American dream. Half of those surveyed said “no.” We’ve lowered our expectations.

I have realized that expectations lead to disappointment because we are not all the same. We do not share the same values and beliefs or cultural identification. Our goals and objectives are different as are our talents, abilities and ethics. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” ( creating an expectation and possible disappointment) should be changed to “do unto others in the hope that they will do that unto you, but without expectation of that happening,” saving you a lot of unnecessary, but predicable, disappointment.

While we are told of the advantage of diversity we are painfully aware of its many downsides. Remember the tower of Babble. It was not created to make humans more productive. It was not a reward.

President Obama campaigned on the prospect of hope. He said that we can hope for a better future that includes greater prosperity for a larger share of the population. The optimism he espoused has drowned in a sea of partisanship, ego and limited intellect.

I have decided to cultivate hope and I believe that expectations are to entitlement as hope is to gratitude.  

I hope for the best in everything I do but have no expectations.

Having had a very successful career as an analyst, I send suggestions to our representatives in the hopes that they will read them and use them to help the affected population. But I don’t expect them to even read them. I would be grateful if they did, but I don’t feel that I am entitled to their attention.

I have suggested a way to avoid the massive foreclosures that occurred in 2008 and continued for years. I could not get response from any of our representatives even though my idea would have saved thousands of people their homes and would have prevented or, at least, eased the collapse in housing values. I now believe that they knew my idea but wanted to give billions to homeowners. ( I wrote to the CEO of the largest lender with my idea. He had the executive in charge of the bank’s mortgage program respond, telling me that that option has been available from the start, but it was never mentioned or publicized. That was unexpected.)

I have recently suggested a way to save the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the need for it to be mandatory, have penalties for non-compliance or provide tax credits to subsidize the insurance companies by allowing them to charge higher rates knowing that the customer will get a tax rebate. My idea is so obvious, you would think that the many great minds that engineered this important legislation would have also come up with it. Yet, I still hope that a decision maker will read my plan and make good use of it. But I don’t expect it. Just because I am a constituent and supporter, a taxpayer and a neighbor, I don’t feel myself entitled to their response, but I’d sure appreciate it.

I write a column and a blog that is also available on Facebook. I write in the hope of helping people by stimulating thought and conversation about issues that I think are important. I hope that people will read and appreciate my ideas. But I don’t expect it. I would hope to get feedback from my readers and am grateful when I do. I don’t think that I am entitled to thoughtful response from my audience.

I hope that this very column will be read and be helpful to a number of people. It would be nice to receive response to it. If I do, I will feel very grateful.

Saving the Affordable Care Act

In what is called President Obama’ s most important legislation, the Affordable Care Act, has been under constant fire. The House voted 54 times to end it. The GOP shut down the government trying to kill it. Recent polls show that the majority of  the American people are against it. It is cited as part of the reason the Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 election and then of the Senate in 2014.

Why?

The Affordable Care Act was developed to curb the abuses of the medical insurance industry. Individuals needing health care coverage that was not available to them through their employer  or through a federal program like Medicare or Medicaid (Medical in California), had to apply to the healthcare insurance companies operating in their area. People found to have had pre-existing medical conditions were faced with very high, almost unaffordable policy options. Companies also asked questions about behavior such as whether someone smoked cigarettes or marijuana, whether one drank and how much and about any previous medical conditions even if they were no longer a problem. The companies would then raise their rates accordingly.

Insurance companies also had caps limiting the amount of claims they would accept. If the patient cost them too much, they could discontinue their coverage.

As many as 50 million were thought to be without any medical coverage. When their illness became too much to ignore, many would wind up in the emergency room of their local hospital making the cost of their treatment even greater. Some could not pay for their treatment theoretically making everyone pay a little more to make up for the loss.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) came up with a solution. Let individuals without insurance sign up for it through a health exchange in their state. The exchange would let all the health care carriers bid to get the business. This would make their rates more competitive. The companies could not ask about pre-existing medical conditions or lifestyle questions. They had to accept all applicants. But in order for this to work for the insurers, everyone had to get coverage. To ensure that everyone got coverage, fines would be imposed on those who elected to not sign up. Hopefully, with everyone getting coverage, there would be enough healthy applicants to make up for the unhealthy ones who would be sure to sign up.

In order to ensure that everyone could afford coverage, the government promised to give tax credits to those with insufficient means. Those with almost no money would be transferred to the Medicaid program where they would get coverage for free.

We were told that those who do not sign up are being irresponsible causing the rest of us to pay for their medical care, if it is ever needed.

But many people objected. Why should the young and healthy, who might not need medical coverage subsidize the unhealthy? Why should people be forced to buy insurance they didn’t need? And why are some people getting tax credits? Will this be like the Earned Income Credit which has a fraud rate of about $11 billion a year? And does the government have the right to fine or tax the public for non-compliance?

Now that the GOP controls both chambers, it is likely they will try again to force the President to end the ACA.

I think that I have come up with a way to make everyone happy.

First, keep all the favorable parts of ACA including allowing children under 26 to be on their parents’ plan (proving what I have been saying that now anyone under 26 in still a child - that 26 is the new 21 and 18), having no caps, and having state exchanges to bring all the available companies in a competition for this once captive audience. The mandate that businesses of a certain size must offer health insurance to its employees who work at least a certain number of hours a week should remain as would federal coverage still be available to those who cannot afford coverage at all.

The individual mandate should be dropped. People should be able to keep whatever coverage they currently have and those without any coverage do not need to buy it. In return, the private insurers bidding in the state exchanges can reject any applicant with serious, long term and well-documented medical conditions like cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, liver disease, pancreatitis, and AIDS. They could not consider past injuries, alcohol or tobacco use, etc. - just the agreed upon serious pre-existing conditions. Those rejected for serious conditions would be immediately transferred to the federal program, just like those with insufficient income are, except these people would have the same share of cost as they would have through the exchange if they were healthy.

Since private carriers would have no new policies with serious medical pre-existing conditions, they would not need everyone to enroll to make money. And since people would buy insurance only if they chose to and since there would be no federal subsidy through tax credits, the insurers would have to lower their rates to be competitive. Income would not be an issue unless the person were close to indigent and therefore also eligible to federal medical coverage, but with no deductible. There would be no fines for non-compliance because compliance would be voluntary.

But what about the argument that those who choose to go without insurance are being irresponsible? Is a person who keeps himself healthy and never needs medical services irresponsible? If he does need to see a doctor, he will have to pay for it. How is that irresponsible? On the other hand, if a person abuses his body with excessive food, alcohol, tobacco and/or drugs, but has coverage and makes use of it regularly, is he responsible? Does he not cost the ratepayer and the taxpayer more than the person who takes care of himself and needs little medical attention?

I think that with these changes, most of the objections to ACA will disappear and the vast majority of our people will embrace it. Even Republicans.

Seeking a Middle Ground

Now that the GOP controls the Congress but cannot override a presidential veto, the two arms of government must work together. They must find a middle ground that both can live with and might be actually better than either extreme position. Here are our three most difficult issues:

The Affordable Care Act is probably the most contentious issue between the two parties and the electorate, which is split in its support.

Liberals feel that everyone must have health coverage and that business and government should subsidize it. They believe that having coverage must be mandated and backed by mandatory fines to ensure compliance. The mandate is necessary, they believe in order to remove all preconditions as barriers to getting affordable coverage. Further, they feel that those who cannot afford the rates should get government subsidies in the form of tax credits.

Conservatives resent being forced to buy health insurance that they might not want or need. Conservatives resent having the government subsidize payments with tax credits that are based on reported taxable income.

I have a solution that both can live with and would actually improve the current system:

Eliminate the mandates for individuals while maintaining them for businesses of a certain size for employees who work a certain number of hours a week. Individuals not covered by an employer’s group plan or by a federal program like Medicare or Medicaid, should be free to decide whether they want to buy coverage. If they so decide, they should be able to avail themselves of the health exchange which would offer deals from several different insurance groups. The insurers will be free to ask about certain medical preconditions that are long term, expensive to treat and well documented such as cancer, heart disease, type 1 diabetes, AIDS, kidney failure, liver disease, pancreatitis, alzheimer’s, etc. Insurers cannot ask or consider any medical preconditions other than those agreed upon by the decision-makers. They cannot ask about how many drinks we have or whether we have ever had marijuana or broken a leg.

The various health insurance companies will then offer competitive rates for those without any of the identified serious health conditions and refer the rejected applicants to the federal system - Medicare. Medicare will then cover these applicants and charge a share of cost equivalent to the premiums charged the healthy private coverage recipients.

This way the insurers can cover everyone who wants coverage and be motivated to lower their rates to attract more healthy members mindful that individuals will not receive government subsidies which are really also subsidies for the insurers.

Therefore coverage will not be mandatory and there will be no government tax credits saving a lot of time, trouble and fraud. Tax credits are too tempting for many to resist. The Earned Income Credit has an estimated $11 billion in fraud each year. Those who elect to forgo coverage will them be responsible for the health costs should they occur.

Illegal immigration is another sore point.

Liberals feel that if people take the time and trouble to leave their homelands because of the corruption, poverty and resultant violence, and come to our country, we should accept them and help them on their path to citizenship. “Aren’t we all descended from immigrants?” they ask. “Doesn’t the Statue of Liberty say that we want all the poor and huddled masses to come to our shores?” They do not want people found to be here without authority to be deported because it would break up the affected family, including those not yet started. 

Conservatives want the border completely secured so that no one can just walk in. They want those caught crossing, to be immediately repatriated without assignment of an attorney and a court date that will never be attended. Conservatives would like those found here to be deported regardless of their length or quality of stay. They are completely opposed to giving those here illegally permanent residency or citizenship.

I have a slight compromise:

First, completely secure the southern border and our visiting Visa system to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Deport all those currently being held or any that still get through, almost immediately after apprehending them near the border.  They should not be imprisoned or released to the community for a future court date. People seeking asylum should be invited to do so in their native country before leaving. We have embassies and consulates that could process these requests.

Our government should work with the Latin American countries from which these immigrants are coming. We should develop a new Marshal type plan to make these countries places where people want to live not leave.

We should allow those who have been here for several years and committed no serious crimes or violations to be granted temporary residence status allowing them to live and work without fear of deportation unless they commit serious crimes in the future. They will be able to work for the same wages and benefits as their coworkers receive. Those who have committed crimes here should be deported upon completion of their prison sentences. If they have family here, one would expect them all to move back as that is what families do.

The federal income tax code is a third major issue.

Conservatives want to pay lower marginal tax rates and want more people to pay taxes. The liberals want the rich to pay more in taxes and want to see fewer tax loopholes for the wealthy.

As I have already written in previous columns, I think we should eliminate all itemized deductions and credits for personal income and replace them with a standard deduction (self employed and corporate income would still have itemized deductions). The top marginal tax rate could then be lowered to 35% for income over $1 million as opposed to the current 39.5% for income over $400,000. And all income would be equally taxable, so dividends would be the same as interest and earned income and Social Security benefits. Income is income.

This would satisfy both sides, raise a lot more revenue and would be much easier to administer with a lot less chance of fraud.

How’s that for finding middle ground for three of our country’s most divisive issues? There is reason to hope.

A Change Needed in American Education

We are having serious problems especially in public high school education in America. Where we used to be one of the best educated nations, we are now way down on the list of top countries in this regard. Our high schools are seeing a high drop out rate and the graduates are too often found to be ill prepared for college or for success in the world. What is the problem and what changes need to be made?

One problem has been demographic. Public high schools, especially those in large urban areas, have gone from being places where middle class kids got their education to places where poor minority children go for classes. Los Angeles public school district is now 85% Latino and 95% of the students get free lunch because of their family’s low economic status. Nowadays, parents that can afford it send their children to private or parochial schools rather than the neighborhood school down the street.

As a result, standards have been lowered.

Part of the problem has been inadequate funding for public schools in general resulting in large class sizes giving teachers less time to spend with each student.

Part of the problem has been the learning model which has stressed memorization instead of understanding, recalling instead of thinking.

But I think a large part of the problem is that much of what high school students are being asked to learn is irrelevant or uninteresting or both. Students are not seeing the longterm utility of much of the material they are being asked to remember. How does it help them in their lives?

Today, high school students, especially those who have any college hopes are expected to take certain courses in order to graduate. They must take four years of English including grammar and literature, at least three years of history, including American history, at least two years of a foreign language, three years of science and of math.

The English requirement makes good sense. It is our country’s language and our students should know proper spelling, grammar and diction. They should be familiar with the great works of literature which provide readers with new ideas and ways of thinking. This knowledge will help them throughout their lives.

It is also important to know and understand history. If presented properly, history can be an exciting story of our origins with lessons for the future.

And even though the English language has become the universal language, with people all over the globe learning it, it still seems like at least two years of a foreign language would be helpful. While French and German are no longer quite so universal, Spanish has become one spoken often in the States and might be good to know. I have always been a great believer in the value of   classes in Latin. So much of our language and grammar come from Latin as do so many important languages like French, Spanish and Italian.

But what of the math and science requirements? How many of us have ever had cause to use algebra, calculus, geometry or trigonometry in our daily lives - even once? How many of us remember any of it? Those who go on to study higher math, science, engineering or technology will have great use of these studies, but will the majority?

The same is true for science courses in high school. How often do we use our chemistry or physics knowledge?

What if we offered eighth graders a math and a science survey course. The math course would include basic algebraic principals like writing equations and solving for x in linear equations. The geometry and trigonometry segments would include the basic concepts without all the theorems and corollaries.  The science survey course would cover the basics of biology, chemistry and physics without the details and equations. Some students will show a great interest in pursuing these fields in high school, the rest will be offered alternatives.

The alternatives can vary from hands-on learning such as shop, weaving or auto mechanics to courses like logic, philosophy, psychology, sociology and economics. There could be courses in home economics including financial dealings, hygiene and nutrition. All of these courses are currently being taught in varying degrees in many schools already or once were, like shop and home economics.

I think that these changes would improve student satisfaction and thus increase graduation rates and would better prepare students for the future enabling them to think as well as remember.

But what about college requirements? What if they still require all the math and science for admission? I think that colleges should drop these requirements except for math and science majors. These would have been the students who wanted to take all the math and/or science they can get. One of my daughters had five years of math, including two years of calculus and five of science in high school. She had three years of biology alone. My other daughter had the bare minimum at a school that even offered simplified courses in math and science for her. The former went into nursing but the other is more of an artist, for whom math and science are irrelevant.

And yet most colleges today require applicants to have a full load of math and science and then require additional courses in college. When one of my daughters’ freshman class orientation at college welcomed the students, the speaker predicted that a third of those present would drop out after a year because of the math requirement. How is that helpful?

What is the purpose of education? I think that it helps students learn to observe and gather data and then to reach practical conclusions and recommendations. Education should teach us how best to learn so that we can make the most of our own potential while having a positive impact on the world we live in.  I don’t think that education today is doing that. I think that it is putting up unnecessary roadblocks to learning and growth and failing to teach our students to think and understand.

Reducing Income Inequality

Much is being written of late about the great gap between the haves and have nots to the point that it will soon be the have “everythings” and the “have nothings except debts.” There is little disagreement among economists and pundits that this growing disparity is not good for the affected people or for the country’s economy. The best selling book by a French economist predicts that the problem will only get worse as the financial markets outperform production. Since those with the most capital profit most from financial investments, one suggestion is to heavily tax capital. Another suggestion is to heavily tax high income earners and redistribute the income to the poor and/or the middle class.

I have a much simpler idea that is comprised of four changes: dramatically improve public K-12 education for every student; increase the  minimum wage and therefore the wages above as well; change the tax code eliminating all itemized deductions and credits on all sources of personal income which will also be equally taxable; and lower the maximum amount not subject to inheritance tax.

Everyone surely agrees that a good education is an important factor in future success. It is also clear that many of our students are not getting a good education  in part because of large class sizes as well as family socio-economic problems affecting the children. But I think another much neglected part is a lack of relevance many high school courses have for students. School curricula are no longer tailored to student needs and differences. Students are no longer tested and evaluated to find the coursework to which they are most suited.

We are not only not born or created equal, we are also not created to be the same and accomplish the same goals.

Some of us were required to take three levels of algebra and a year of plane geometry and trigonometry. Some students even took calculus. How many of us ever used them? Students are urged to take at least three years of science including biology, chemistry and physics. How many will ever use their knowledge? Students who will go on to study science, engineering, technology or math will need and enjoy these courses. But others might profit more from courses in Latin, philosophy, social science, economics or crafts. By testing students for their aptitude; by providing excellent survey courses in junior high and with smaller classes, teachers can identify student interests and talents. The result will be better educated students and better future parents and more responsible community members. More educated girls have fewer children they can’t afford.  

Conservatives want to see a reduction in the amount the government spends on transfer payments to low income households and an increase in the number of households that contribute to the tax base. Liberals wants to see low income workers paid a decent, living wage. By increasing the minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour to $10 an hour immediately and to $15 an hour in five or ten years, the average affected workers’ income would immediately rise by almost 50%. Those supervising the minimum wage earners would also see pay increases as would those above them. Companies could raise their charges for goods and services to cover their increased labor costs but would be restricted by competition and reduced demand. The companies would have to sacrifice profit which would mean reducing bonuses and dividends to investors. Stock values would decline reducing the capital worth of the very richest. The other effect would be a drastic reduction in transfer payments such as the Earned Income Credit, Food Stamps (SNAP), rent and utility subsidies no longer needed by more prosperous former recipients. The billions saved by the reduced transfer payments could be used to help the very poor find their way back into the mainstream. And more households would earn enough to pay income taxes, thus broadening the tax base.

Conservatives want to see a lowering of marginal tax rates on their personal income. Liberals want the rich to pay more and not use loopholes to lower their taxable income. The government would like to see a reduction in tax fraud and an increase in revenue. By changing the tax code to eliminate all itemized deductions and credits and replacing them with a generous standard deduction (e.g. $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for families), it would force the wealthiest to pay more in taxes without access to any loopholes. (Currently, two out of three taxpayers uses a standard deduction.) Making all sources of income fully taxable means that Social Security benefits as well as stock dividends would be treated the same instead of taxing only a percentage of the former or at a lower rate for the latter. By so doing the maximum tax rate could actually be lowered to 35% for incomes over a million ( down from 39.5% for income over $400,000), meaning that 99.9% of all taxpayers would pay less than 30% of their income for federal income tax while many at the lower end of income would pay less than 10%, as little as 5%. While currently 47% of the population pay no income tax, under the new system more would be able to afford to pay taxes and the rich would pay almost 30% of their actual income in federal tax (in addition to state income tax and FICA). With more taxes collected involving much less paperwork and verification, the government would save hundreds of billions some of which could be used to provide better educational opportunities to the less fortunate as well as improving the infrastructure and creating needed public service jobs.

Finally, the ceiling for tax free inheritance should be lowered from the current $10 million (five per parent), to a maximum of $5 million. This would have obvious impact on the accumulation of capital and would provide yet another source of revenue that could be used for the public good.

For me the goal should be to have a land of two classes - the middle, with a two wage earner family earning a minimum of $60,000 a year ($15 per hour times 2000 hours per year times two wage earners) and upper middle with incomes up to a million but netting about $600,000. There can and should not ever be absolute income equality, but some being ten times richer than those at the bottom would be as close as it could be.     

Protecting Our Sacred Cows

Protecting Our Sacred Cows

When I lived in New York City, a classmate’s father owned a steakhouse called the Sacred Cow. I learned then that in India, cows were considered sacred and could not be slaughtered for meat.  It made the name of a steak house somewhat ironic. I later learned that the Hindus considered cows sacred because they thought that humans could come back as cows.

But we have sacred cows here in America. They have nothing to do with reincarnation or livestock. They are our perceived heroes and our victims.

Our heroes include all military personnel, police officers, professional athletes and fire fighters. Our list of victims is much longer. 

We have learned lately that death benefits to families of fallen soldiers must be paid within three days of death. We were angered to hear that some families had to wait several extra days to receive $110,000 for their tragic loss. The delay was caused by sequestration. We all felt that these people should not have to wait more than three days for compensation.

We then heard that the V.A. had a backlog of 900,000 claims for benefits. The vast majority of these had been filed in the past year and were from veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict which involved almost two million military personnel over the 12 years since we invaded Iraq. No one ever asked how could there be that many claims. No one asked what these claims were for or what percent of them were legitimate. These were American heroes and they deserved better.

Now we hear that as many as 20 vets died while waiting to get appointments at a V.A.hospital. We are outraged. It turns out that every person who served in the military for 24 months without getting a dishonorable discharge or was discharged before that because of injuries, is eligible to V.A. health benefits for the rest of their lives. No one asked why these vets didn’t go to their local emergency room with their life threatening illness. No one has asked why these people, who might have served for two years 20 years ago, didn’t have some other health coverage. Didn’t they ever have another job that provided health care benefits? Didn’t any of them qualify for Medicare or Medicaid? We didn’t ask because these are our sacred cows, our American heroes no matter how long they served or where they were stationed. They deserve everything.

In California, our police and fire fighters are our heroes, our sacred cows and are well taken care of for their noble service. Police officers and firefighters can earn more than $100,000 a year in salaries and very generous fringe benefits including getting as much as 90% of their pay when retiring. Firefighters here work 24 hour shifts which include eight hours of sleep. They work fewer than 100 days a year and are reimbursed at a cost of about $1300 a day in salary and benefits. When they are called to action, though, they are risking their lives to save our lives and property. They should get whatever they want.

Our sports giants are our superheroes and deserve whatever they get. Does a football player get $15 million for 16 games a year? Did you see that pass he made last week? Is $20 million too much for a slugger who will play in 150 games a year? How much is the team making on him? Our kids need well dressed heroes.

And then there are our other sacred cows - our underdogs, our victims of societal abuse.

The most enduring group up until the middle of last century was the Jewish people. They were victimized by Egypt, Syria, Rome and later by most of Europe culminating in the attempted extermination of the group by the Nazis more than 70 years ago. The Jews are no longer seen as underdogs and do not qualify for sacred cow status and protections.

In America we see people of sub Sahara Africa or indigenous American ancestry, and the LGBT community as mistreated groups deserving sacred cow protections.

Most black Americans had ancestors who were brought here as slaves from Africa. They were brutally mistreated from the start with many of their oppressors truly believing that they were a sub human species, thus justifying their mistreatment. Even when the slaves were freed barely 150 years ago, they suffered terrible discrimination and resultant living conditions. What was done to them is unforgivable. Mindful of this shameful history, white Americans want to make amends. An easy way is to condemn publicly anything word or act that might offend members of this already too-offended group. 

Last year we were shocked to learn that a well known Southern cooking maven had admitted under deposition that she had once used a forbidden word that begins with the letter between “m” and “o.” We all rose up against her causing her sponsors to desert her like rats fleeing a sinking ship. She lost millions as we cheered that justice had been done. We would never use that word or even think it. We are tolerant of anyone except those we find intolerant toward one of our sacred cows.

When we heard a recording made of a private conversation between an old, angry, deranged man and his assistant in his own home, we again were shocked and angered. We were not shocked that his privacy had been violated, we were upset by what he said about his assistant’s behavior with black people. We demanded that the man be punished. He should lose his basketball team and be fined the maximum allowed. No one should be allowed to say anything bad about members of any disadvantaged minority group, even in the privacy of their own home. Privacy is paramount, usually, but not in cases like this one.

Then there was the case of a young black teen who was shot and killed by a seemingly white neighborhood watch volunteer. We were shown the wrong photo of both the victim and the suspect and presented with an altered 911 tape. But even after we realized that we had been misled and that the victim was much older, bigger and stronger than his picture showed and that the suspect was a lot smaller and less intimidating than his would suggest and that the incriminating 911 had been altered by the media to be incriminating, we were still shocked at this needless murder.We demanded justice. And when we learned that it was the victim who was attacking and trying to kill the suspect by knocking him down, kneeling astride him and smashing his head against the pavement as many as 30 times, we refused to call it self defense even though the unanimous jury found that.  An unarmed teen lost his life and his family lost a son. The shooter should have let himself be killed, he surely had it coming.

A few months ago we learned that the new CEO of a major computer related business had donated $1,000 to a political campaign that we were against. It was the Proposition 8 campaign of 2008 in California. Proposition 8 was a restatement of a law previously voted on and approved by large margin. It was that marriage is between one man and one woman. Proposition 8 passed with a majority of Californians again voting to maintain the matrimonial status quo. Again we were stunned. A CEO gave money for a campaign that the majority voted in favor of but that we felt was wrong. Thankfully, the voters’ mandate was overturned with the help of excellent legal representation. But still we wanted this new CEO punished. We wanted him fired. Free speech is fine and so is ours saying “fire, the bastard.”

Now we hear about an unarmed black teen who was killed by a white police officer for no apparent reason. We demand to know the officer’s name so that we can terrorize him and his family. We want him destroyed. Many of the good people in the town have bravely rioted for days now. Some took advantage of an “all you can take” policy at all the local stores. It was the least the community could do to make up for this tragic loss. A Florida lawyer-turned-cheerleader and rabble rouser got the crowd excited especially when it came out that the innocent had  committed a strong arm robbery at a local store just before the shooting. How dare they blame the victim! The good people showed their displeasure by looting the store where the robbery took place. That will teach them. Then it came out that the victim was high on marijuana which might explain why he was walking in the middle of the street with his loot in hand when the officer stopped him. It might also somehow explain why he attacked the officer and tried to take his gun. He might have been just fooling around. So let the demonstrations and rioting continue. That’s what free speech is all about isn’t it?

The American Indian has been abused by European conquerors and their descendants for centuries, relegated to second class citizenship in all of the Americas. We recently learned that this oppressed group is being oppressed again. A football team has decided on a name offensive to some people in the affected group. The decision was made 81 years ago and has been in effect ever since, but we have decided it is now too offensive and must be changed. Hasn’t this group suffered enough?

It seems that by responding with anger,violence and intolerance toward anyone or about any act we consider to be one of intolerance toward any of our sacred cows, the more tolerant and compassionate we seem and feel.

Funny isn’t it?

What to do About Our Univited Guests

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently voted unanimously to invite and help recent immigrants who were caught trying to enter America illegally. The Board wants to sponsor 200-300 needy immigrants each month. And to that end has also authorized the expenditure of $100,000 a month for two years to pay lawyers to represent our recent unauthorized arrivals. The City is already a sanctuary city allowing undocumented immigrants to live here without any fear of deportation and with every possible social service available to them. Our document-free immigrants are living here in the City by the Bay because of a policy that was created to aid refugees from El Salvador’s bloody scenes in the 1980’s, but just kept expanding to cover everyone here illegally.

San Francisco is also the home of more than 6,000 homeless. We are spending approximately $30,000 a year per homeless person (that equals $2,500 a month or $80+ a day) to house, feed and provide medical care for this needy population and still have half living in the streets and in our parks, relieving themselves wherever they can.

The City of St. Francis is known as the most liberal and generous city in the country and perhaps the world. Many of our residents are doing very well economically. We have more billionaires per capita and per square mile than any other city in the world. We can afford to pay our workers well, even those here without permission. Nannies, housekeepers, construction workers, landscapers and dog walkers make about $25-$30 an hour. Most of these workers pay no payroll or income tax and so net more than the average American does.

But San Franciscans are not the only Americans who want to help our new, uninvited guests. Many Americans realize how lucky we are to live here and bemoan the fact that so many people cannot live as we do. Many of us feel a a sense of noblesse oblige and want to help these unfortunate people whose only fault is being from a poor, corrupt, violent and unhealthy country. Some of us even don’t blame the leaders of these countries for their people’s poverty nor their culture or beliefs and practices. We choose to blame outside sources. Some of us want to blame America and other successful countries for these poor countries’ failures even though their problems go back hundreds of years. In any case, we want to help the helpless innocent.

For the past several years, tens of thousands of people have migrated from Central America to find a better life. We are told that these people live in poverty in countries like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador where the average wage is less than $1000 a year. They must pay $7000 to $10,000 to have a family member brought here the 1500 miles without invitation. We now have what is being called a “humanitarian crisis” resulting from a “broken immigration system.” What should be done with these tens of thousands of new interlopers? Can we send them back to suffer in their native lands? Can we help them here in our great land?

The United States of America is, without a doubt, the richest in the world. We have the largest gross domestic product, and annual budget. But we also have some problems. We have an accumulated federal debt of more than $17 trillion, adding half a trillion dollars in annual deficits each year. More than 10 million of our people are unemployed.  Job seekers without a high school diploma make up a large share of our long term unemployed. Many of these applicants are Latino or black. (While we are never told who these unemployed are, there is a 40% unemployment rate among young blacks). They cannot find entry level jobs because many are taken by the eight million people already working here illegally.

Fifty million Americans live in poverty relying on the government for their basic needs, many are black or Latino.

But still we want to help the poor from other lands. There are more than three billion people living in abject poverty all over the world, including 2.5 billion living on less than $2 a day while America’s poor live on as little as $40 per day. In Latin America, there are more than 165 million living in desperate poverty (29% of the population), the vast majority would much rather live in America with its population of 320 million.

But America has only 53% of its 116 million households that can afford to pay any income tax at all, meaning that about 60 million families must pay for the needs of 320 million Americans and 10+ million illegal immigrants already living here. Can they also be asked to support the many new immigrants who lack the education, intellect and training to support themselves in this new land? If they stay, they become totally our responsibility for generations. We must educate them, treat their healthcare needs, find shelter for them as well as good paying jobs.

So what is the solution? Can we turn our backs on the tens of millions of Latin Americans who must suffer lives of poverty and violence in countries riddled with corruption? Can we accommodate these people in our rich country even if it means doing less for the poor Americans living in our country? 

I think that the answer lies in the countries from which so many citizens want to leave. While I am against most of our foreign aid which too often goes to corrupt governments and makes even decent ones dependent upon our continued largesse, I believe that it is in our national and regional interest to help our neighbors to the south. The aid should not be in the form of weapons systems or money that usually goes to the powerful. The aid should be in the form of advisers. We should advise on education, which will be the foundation for future development in these underdeveloped nations.  We should provide guidance for business development and management and for developing government systems to discourage fraud and corruption so rampant in these countries. We can help set up checks and balances in the various arms of government. And we can help educate the population on the merits and necessity of birth control.  If you are too poor to feed yourself, you probably should not be having children.

PBS recently did a piece on the poverty in Central America by telling the story of one family.  The mother was a woman who appeared to be about 60 very difficult years old. She had hardly any teeth and lived in squalor. She had six children who were malnourished causing them to be much smaller than normal and with diminished intellectual capacities. The youngest was less than a year old. As with all such reports, the reporter did not ask the obvious questions: why did this seemingly very old woman have six children and how could the youngest be a baby? The answer must be that the woman was not 60 but just a very old 50 and that she had kids she could not afford because someone had sex with her many times without benefit of contraception. If the poor in Central America could stop having children they could not feed, it would dramatically reduce poverty in that region.

If more Latin American governments could find ways to change their cultures and values, they could slowly work their way out of poverty. Brazil is doing that now in South America. Costa Rica and Panama are finding ways to change for the better in Central America. Mexico has also seen great improvement in living standards in the past 20 years. Countries like Guatemala and Honduras produce healthy food crops but are forced to export most of it leaving the people with diets of rice and beans. Women are treated badly by their men. The non-white populations, though in majority, are treated as second-class citizens with most of the leaders being of pure Spanish heritage. These are some of the areas where cultural changes are needed in Central and South America.

But it should not only be America who comes to the rescue of our southern neighbors. There are more than 190 other countries in our world, including the 34 Latin American countries that are joined in the Organization of American States. This organization should be instrumental in helping not only these tens of thousands of recent refugees to return to find safety in their own region, but aiding also all those who are suffering there now as well as helping the millions now living in the States without legal authority to return to their beloved homelands with reason to hope for a brighter future.

A New Political Party and Agenda

A New Political Party and Agenda

If you are tired of the excesses of the Left and Right, of liberals and conservatives, of Democrats and Republicans, take heart - a third party is emerging - the Independent Moderate Party.

It will have a simple, straightforward platform for future government. Here are the planks:

I.    Reducing income inequality -
    A.  Raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour now and up to $15 an hour in
          five years.
    B.  Change the federal tax code with all income considered equally taxable, and no itemized deductions or
          credits, just a standard one and only six,    
          tax brackets with the highest being 35% for incomes over $1 million.
    C.  Improve pre K-12 public education, including a change in curriculum
    D.  Bring manufacturing jobs for clothing, electronics and appliances back to USA via trade agreements to
          produce good paying jobs.
    E.   Put financial reforms in place splitting up  banks into retail and investment.

II.    Reducing the budget deficit -
    A.   Close most of our 700+ foreign military bases, shrink the infantry and expand special forces, letting host
           countries, regional treaty organizations and the U.N. ensure their security.
    B.   Enacting 1A and 1B which would raise taxes while reducing transfer  payments such as Earned Income
           Credit, food stamps and rent subsidies.
    C.   Reduce foreign aid that now exceeds $50 billion a year.
    D.   Reduce prison populations by releasing prisoners who are no risk to  society.
    E.    Legalize and tax marijuana.
    F.    Route out waste and fraud in government programs and healthcare.
    G.   Stop minting pennies and nickels.


III.      Improving the Environment
    A.   Dramatically increase solar and wind power sources while limiting coal production and domestic oil use.
    B.    Plant tens of millions of trees, especially near factories.
    C.    Strictly enforce fair EPA regulations.
    D.    Encourage alternate transportation choices like walking, biking or living nearby.

IV.    Improving the Political Environment
    A.     Eliminate campaign contributions, shorten and change the primary and campaign efforts.
    B.     Work with Congress on moderate measures avoiding extremism.
    C.     Make legislation simple and clear so the public and legislators understand it.
    D.     Encourage moderation.

V.    Improving Immigration System
    A.    Secure the borders and our VISA system.
    B.    Penalize companies hiring undocumented workers
    C.    Allow undocumented residents to get documentation if they have not violated the law. They must be paid
           what others are but will not be eligible to citizenship or welfare.
    D.    Change criteria for legal immigration to be people with skills we need and not distant relatives of legal
            residents.
    E.    Make English the official language.
                
VI.    Making Social Security Secure
    A.    Immediately raise FICA deduction to be 8% for both employer and employee instead of current 7.65%
           (this would include 6.5% for Social Security and 1.5% for Medicare).
    B.    Over time, raise the FICA deduction to 10% each.
    C.    Raise the maximum amount subject to FICA deduction to $200,000
           from the current $110,000 ceiling.
    D.    Make all Social Security benefits payments subject to federal income tax, not just a maximum of 85% of
           benefits. All tax collected goes back into the trust for Social Security.


VII.    Making Medicare Healthy
    A.    Route out fraud and waste said to be in the hundreds of billions.
    B.    Use improvements in communications to dramatically reduce doctors‘ visits and lab tests.
    C.    Improve preventive and treatment strategies to reduce the incidence and severity of major diseases like
            heart, cancer, liver damage and AIDS.
    D.    Dramatically reduce incidence of obesity now affecting one out of  three Americans.
    E.    Dramatically reduce number of people smoking cigarettes.
    F.    Dramatically reduce the rate of alcoholism.
    G.    Legalize euthanasia.

VIII.    Foreign Policy
    A.    Maintain a non interventionist position
    B.    Support strengthening the U.N. to police the world
    C.    Support NATO and encourage the strengthening of all regional alliances (e.g. African, Latin American,
           Arab, and Asian)
    D.   Dramatically reduce foreign military footprint closing most foreign bases and cutting most foreign aid.
    E.   Use economic pressure, rather than military force to change behavior.




      

Finding the Right Team Name

Names have meaning and value. Parents try hard to find the perfect name for their beloved offspring. Pet owners challenge themselves to find a name for their pet that expresses their affection for them and the attributes that make them so lovable.

Athletic teams also choose their names carefully. Now, a team whose team name has been the same for more than 81 years is being asked, urged, demanded to change their name for fear it might offend some members of a group that has been identified with the name.

The team was the Boston Braves but changed it to the Redskins to honor its beloved coach who was part American Indian. They are now the Washington Redskins and are now being asked to find a less offensive name.

There is no doubt that the American Indian has been mistreated since the 16th century by Europeans who migrated here hoping to start new lives in a new world. The settlers stole Indian land, killed their people and forced the survivors to live in substandard conditions on Indian reservations. When some of the reservations were found to have oil, the government withheld billions of dollars owed for access to the black gold.

The name “redskin” is not one that American Indians enjoy or identify with. To some it is racist and should have never been used for a team name. It should be changed, some say. A number are also offended by the name “Indian” or “Brave” preferring to be called Native Americans not to be confused with the term “native Americans” which refers to anyone born here.

But what about other team names? Are some of them also possibly offensive and needing to be changed?

The Cleveland Indians should be the Cleveland Native Americans. The Cleveland Browns should have a color blind name not one that could upset Latin Americans. The Cincinnati Reds should have a less communist sounding name that might also upset Native Americans. The Atlanta Braves should be the Atlanta Courageous. The New York Yankees’ name might offend Southerners still remembering what the Yankees did in the 1860s. And what’s with the Red Sox and White Sox? Should the Golden Gate Warriors be the Peacemakers? And why do the Clippers have a name used for NFL players who make illegal tackles or is it after coupon clippers, which would surely offend the 99%? And there are two teams called the Giants. How does that make short people feel? Does size really matter? Then there’s the 49ers. So people 50 and over should feel old? Isn’t that offensive?

What about the Dodgers? Are they tax dodgers, artful dodgers or do they dodge all rules? Is this what we want our children emulating? Aren’t parents upset? The Chicago Cubs seems like an OK name until you talk to some Boy Scouts. Why not the Chicago Scouts, instead? Chicago also has the Bears. The name sounds like people are naked or are tolerating something difficult. Shouldn’t G-d fearing people find this objectionable? And don’t the Baltimore Orioles sound too much like Oreos, a term also used to question a person’s racial soul? The Oakland Raiders should change their name so as not to offend corporate raiders or those who raid their refrigerators late at night and wonder why they are gaining weight. They should be able to watch the game without feeling guilty.

And the two teams that call themselves the Cardinals should change their name so as not to offend Catholics who saw their cardinals cover-up sex abuses against their children in order to save the "good" name of the Church or atheists or those who believe in the separation of church and sport. The Kings should find a new name as well. America is a democratic republic. We revolted against the King in 1776. How would DAR members whose ancestors gave their brave lives fighting the King feel to hear people cheer for his namesake? The Jets' name must be changed so as not to offend the Puerto Rican - Americans who still feel unfairly stereotyped by the "West Side Story" anti-Puerto Rican gang by that name. Surely they don't want to hear "Here come the Jets..." anymore.

We must be much more sensitive to the possible feelings of our people.

What if we only used the name of the city the team plays in? If there are more than one team in a city as is the case in New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, the name could be followed by the sport name as in Football or Baseball, to avoid possible confusion. This would ensure that no one is offended or hurt by the team name.

See, every problem has a solution. 

Let's hope it doesn't offend anyone.

Addressing Homelessness

Recent surveys on homelessness have found that there are approximately 600,000 homeless people in America; that New York City has 60,000 and San Francisco has 6,400 individuals/families living without a permanent residence. Another study found that different cities had different percentages of homeless living on the streets. San Francisco has about half of this population in shelters at a cost of $165 million per year, most of it county money with some of it going to related services. This figure does not include city costs for medical care and does not include charitable efforts to provide food and shelter to San Francisco’s homeless. When these costs are added, they total more than $200 million that is spent annually on our 6,000+ homeless. We are spending $30,000 per homeless person per year and still half of them are still sleeping on sidewalks and under bridges.

It makes one wonder if there is a better way to help this desperate population. I think there is. First a little history.

Until the 1990s, San Francisco had few homeless people. Single individuals who were poor and in need of food and shelter went first to 150 Otis Street and applied for General Assistance. Families that were poor went to 170 Otis and applied for AFDC.

Applicants for aid would be identified and interviewed and if found eligible, were given a list of hotels and residence centers to call for a room. The clients would be given a cash grant, Medi-Cal, food stamps (now called SNAP) and a Muni fast pass.  There were more than 3,500 individuals on G.A and about 15,000 families on AFDC. Not all the G.A. clients were really eligible to the aid and not all the AFDC recipients were close to being homeless, but about 3,000 single people, mainly men, and thousands of families would have been homeless without these programs.

In 1978, an analyst for the Department of Social Services (now called the Department of Human Services), which administered these programs, produced a report to change the General Assistance program. The report recommended dividing the G.A. caseload into three groups: the permanently disabled, the temporarily disabled and the employable.

Workers assigned the permanently disabled would work to get their clients on Social Security disability (known as OASDI) if they had worked long enough to qualify, or on VA benefits if eligible, or on SSI which was federal/state welfare for the disabled poor. If G.A. clients got on these government programs, the county would be reimbursed for its costs back to the application date from the client’s retro check, and the client would receive welfare benefits that exceeded G.A. payments. G.A. clients who were employable were referred to ETRS for jobs.

But because of the generous G.A. payments and difficulty proving residence, there was an unacceptable level of fraud. People who didn’t live in the county would get aid. People with excess assets would receive benefits to which they were not entitled.

To address this issue, the analyst recommended turning G.A. into an in-kind benefit program. The client would receive little or no cash but get a place to live, food stamps, Medi-Cal and a Muni fast pass. The analyst recommended the City buy the many rundown and filthy residential hotels that clients were living in, fix them up to be clean and safe, and offer them to the clients rent free. The hotels would have been bought either through normal real estate transactions or, if necessary, by eminent domain or police power. Real estate values in the late 70s were a small fraction of what they are today. These hotels are worth many times as much as they would have cost the city in 1980.

While the recommendation to divide the caseload was eventually accepted, the idea about making G.A. an in kind program and buying hotels was rejected by those on the Left and the Right. The Left objected because they wanted clients to have cash to spend as they freely chose. The Right objected to the government replacing the private sector in real estate. It looked like socialism to the Right.

Years later, a young member of the Board of Supervisors with greater political ambitions, unveiled a program called “Care not Cash” which was a move to an in-kind G.A. program but without G.A.

Around the same time, a young American President, eager to reduce the budget deficit, changed the AFDC program into a workfare program. The idea was to end generational welfare and get people back into the work force. There was no more AFDC for the long term poor families to turn to. 

Now, in 2014, the homeless problem in San Francisco has grown from a few hundred in 1980 to as many as 7,000, including children. Every neighborhood now has homeless people sleeping on park benches or city sidewalks; raiding garbage cans for bits of food or recyclable bottles and cans; relieving themselves in public; using public bathrooms for bathing; dressed in rags and suffering in ways the rest of us could not bear and no one should have to. Many of the homeless here have health problems that only get worse with neglect. Many wind up at San Francisco General Hospital needing in patient or out patient treatment.  Many have serious conditions like AIDS, Cancer, diabetes, kidney failure, liver damage, pancreatitis or heart disease.

There are many good people working hard to help the homeless. The city has a program to coordinate with non profits to find more residential opportunities for the needy. Good work is being done in the Tenderloin and the Mission to convert some sleazy hotels into attractive and safe homes for those so in need of them. Charitable organizations are providing clothing and free food to thousands of people each day. Citizens are generously donating their clothing to non profits and charities to clothe this population. The staff at San Francisco General provide excellent medical care to their homeless patients.

But none of this is enough. What should be done?

I think that the analyst who wrote the G.A. report 37 years ago would recommend the following:

The homeless should first go to San Francisco General Hospital to apply for assistance. There they will be identified with basic information like name, birth date, place of birth, social security number and any known medical information. Some might be missing from friend and family who would like to help them. Some might need immediate medical attention. Each person should get a complete physical and a warm shower or bath. While at SFGH, they can get clean clothing selected from the very large inventory already at SFGH.

If the individuals are deemed to be permanently disabled or aged, eligibility workers there should evaluate whether they are eligible to government aid such as VA, OASDI, or SSI, Medi-cal and food stamps. They could then be placed at Laguna Honda’s old, now vacant hospital. It has capacity of more than 300 beds. It was closed when the new facility was built. The new one is more earthquake safe. The old one has never lost a patient to earthquake and probably never will. Patients here die on their own since they have advanced conditions that are usually terminal.

If the individuals applying for homeless assistance are temporarily disabled, they could soon be housed at what will be the old SFGH when the new hospital is completed next year. Old SFGH could house hundreds of  temporarily disabled people providing them with a safe comfortable room and bathroom as well as medical attention to bring them back to health.

If the individuals are deemed employable, with no serious medical or psychological conditions, they need to be housed in safe, clean SROs many of which are in the Tenderloin, SOMA, downtown and Mission districts or in well managed housing project units. Those not already run by non profits dedicated to helping the homeless should be brought up to code and decency for the homeless.

Since these people are healthy enough to work, they should be given work to do in the City to partially pay back for all that they will receive from it. They can help clean and fix their own buildings, pick up litter in the neighborhood, and can help park workers keep the weeds from overwhelming them. Some can help feed the homeless. Others can help other programs intended to help them. Some can collect recyclables that are not already in garbage cans.

Those who can work should does so, not only to contribute to their community, but also as a way to come back into the mainstream, slowly but surely. It also gives them something to do and a feeling of worth raising their self esteem.  

It would seem that most people who are homeless in San Francisco would jump at this idea. It is hard to imagine many preferring to live out on the streets instead of getting a chance to enjoy are more normal life. But those who do prefer the outdoor life should be discouraged from this lifestyle. Those who are too mentally challenged to make this obvious choice can be brought to SFGH on a 5150. This allows them to be kept under observation for three days or as long as 14 days. During that time, these people can go through the same process. After three days of having nice warm meals, new clothes, a few warm baths or showers, and a clean comfy bed to sleep in, many of these people might want to join the program. Those who are healthy and still don’t want in would be released but advised that they can not sleep or eliminate waste products wherever they want. They must get housing on their own and not in city parks or city sidewalks.

These ideas come with a price tag. Running the old SFGH and Laguna Honda will require additional staff and 24 hour coverage. Since all the patients at both should eligible to Medi-Cal, some of these costs should be reimbursed. The aged and permanently disabled would be eligible to Social Security benefits if they worked long enough or SSI if they didn’t. SSI pays $877 or $961 (if living in an SRO) a month per person. This money could go toward paying for their living costs. Food Stamps, now called SNAP, provides $189 a month for an individual and $632 for a family of four. These benefits can go toward feeding the homeless.

And homeless activists must agree that this idea is much better than anything their people have now. They should advocate for this by urging every homeless person to come in out of the cold.

In Search of the Magic Bullets

We have all been assured that life is very complicated and in some ways beyond our human comprehension.  There are no simple answers or solutions.  There are no magic bullets for life’s many problems.

I see magic bullets everywhere.

The magic bullet to saving someone whose coronary arteries were completely blocked was open heart surgery.  They are developing magic bullets to destroy certain cancers without hurting healthy cells. The magic bullet to prevent severe birth defects was prenatal testing and if necessary, first term abortions. The magic bullets to reducing auto fatalities were seat belts and then air bags and laws against drunk driving.

But are there magic bullets for a country’s poverty or to cure a culture of violence?  How can the poor countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East free themselves from their crippling poverty?  Can Muslim radicals such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah members end their lives of vicious violence? Can air pollution and climate change be reversed?

Surely, these are very complex problems dealing with culture, religion, history, genetics and ignorance.  There could be no easy fix.  Could there?

Yes, of course.

The magic bullet to end a third world country’s poverty by doing just one thing: educate the girls.  Educated girls will have children later and have fewer.  The key to a country’s economic rebound is fewer children per poor family.  Educating all the girls might be easier said than done.  Ignorant men, like the Taliban, do not want girls educated at all, the better to subjugate them.  Educated women would raise educated children who would behave in more productive and less violent manners.

But what of the magic bullet to end culturally institutionalized violence as we see in most of the Muslim countries?  Muslim men are said to be violent toward their women and to everyone they feel has somewhat different beliefs from theirs.  How does this tendency change?  I have the magic bullet.

Give them dogs.

Muslim terrorists, reputed to be the most violent on the planet, are not allowed to have dogs.  It is felt that dogs are somehow unclean. Their feet should never touch the ground and their saliva should never touch a Muslim’s skin.  Murdering, raping, lying, destroying and hating are OK, but not a dog’s footstep?

If we can convince Muslim radicals that their prophet had nothing against dogs, we could give them all our shelter dogs we have that will have to be put down - but no Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, German Shepherds, Dobermans or Great Danes, just Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Bernese Mountain dogs, Shelties and Cavalier Spaniels - warm friendly pups who not even a vicious terrorist could abuse.

While Muslim violence can be said to have several causes like low self esteem, feelings of inadequacy, low intelligence, envy, frustration and confusion; the chemical force that ignites the need for violence is testosterone.  It is the fuel of our reptilian brain which is the source of our fight and flight response as well as our sex drive.  The counterbalance to this chemical is oxytocin.  Oxytocin is produced when a mother nurses a baby, or when someone is cared for or when a dog is petted.  Just as testosterone makes us violent, oxytocin makes us loving and kind.

Can you image a nursing mother getting mad and killing someone?  It can not happen.  So too, Muslims no longer denied the companionship of a dog who provides unconditional love and a healthy dose of much needed oxytocin will not hate and want to kill people.  They will not commit suicide killing innocent women and children in order to go to paradise because they won’t want to leave their beloved pets.  Paradise would be here on earth with their loving pets.

But what about climate change, what is the magic bullet to reverse the trend toward greater CO2 pollution leading to the gradual warming of the planet? Besides switching to cleaner burning fuels like solar, wind and hydroelectric power, what can be done?

Grow more trees.

Trees and all vegetation live on CO2 and produce oxygen. We have lost many if not most of our trees here and around the world. If we could immediately plant hundreds of millions of trees all over the planet but especially near highly polluted areas, the vegetation would thrive from all the CO2 available and would produce oxygen in its stead.

The Western world is addicted to a crippling drug called alcohol. It is the cause of several varieties of physical and mental illness. It destroys the liver and pancreas, it cause mood changes and memory loss. Alcoholism can cause people to fight and attempt to damage lives and property. Abuse of this elixir can lead to heart disease and failure, strokes, cancer, Alzheimer’s, driving accidents, type two diabetes and bar fights.

But what can be done to stem what has been a cultural Christian tradition since a Messiah turned water into wine? Alcohol provides an escape from the reality that sometimes is too much to bear. It is an accepted way for us to try to transcend our ordinary consciousness in the hopes of finding more peace and joy, or at least more fun and fewer inhibitions. Life is hard for all of us and we need a way to get beyond the past and future and submerge ourselves in some eternal present. So even though we are all aware of the severe price we pay for enjoying the fermented tonic too freely, we are willing because of the relief we find in it.

Could there be a magic bullet that would liberate us from the harmful effects of this much-needed transcendental device?I say yes there is:

 Legalize marijuana.

Marijuana provides the essential transformational and transcendental experience almost instantaneously at low cost with no known bad side effects. Users will be smarter, funnier, more open, deeper, more compassionate, more creative, less neurotic and will have a much better appetite because food will taste and smell better. Love life will improve, while alcoholism can actually end it. It is also said to cure or at least lessen the effects of asthma. 

But what about education? Is there a magic bullet to improve America’s K-12 public school education system?  The system is plagued with all kinds of problems from tremendous student diversity, more probably than any other educationally successful nations like Norway, Sweden or Japan. Our system is impacted by strong teacher unions that make firing a poor teacher almost impossible.  Too many students come from broken homes or from great poverty or parents who do not speak English. While longer school years would help and the infrastructure can always use improving, is there a magic bullet here?

Smaller classes.

They allow teachers to know their students better and to be able to identify problems much sooner. Does this child have a learning disability? Is that child being abused at home? Does this one really follow what we’re learning? Could that one be bored and need more of a challenge? It’s hard to answer these questions with 30 or 40 kids in a classroom. It’s much easier with just 15-20.  Smaller classes would also allow teachers to teach more effectively and would make inadequate teaching more apparent and subject to improvement efforts. The reduced class size would also allow for more experimentation by teachers and students while reducing the likelihood of trouble making.

There is even a magic bullet to reduce our deficit without hurting the recovery or causing damage: reduce the number of non-magic bullets and military bases abroad and let the U.N. and the various regional treaty countries deal with foreign conflicts without enlisting the aid or unilateral action by the U.S. Making peace would be a large magic bullet for our economy, our morality and our very souls.

But what about dealing with income inequality in America where the poor are too poor and the rich are too rich? What magic bullets do we need besides improved K-12 education for all?

Raise the minimum wage and simplify the federal tax code eliminating all itemized deductions and counting all sources of income as being equally taxable.  

Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour immediately and to $15 an hour in the next decade would raise the minimum annual income of a full time worker to $30,000 a year. This would reduce profit margins in large corporations meaning lower bonuses for CEOs and lower dividends for the idle rich who live off them. Simplifying the tax code so that it exists only to raise needed revenue and not to encourage social or economic behavior, would mean giving all taxpayers a standard deduction but no itemized ones. Currently, two thirds of all taxpayers use a standard deduction. Itemized deductions are used mainly by the highest income households to keep more of their generous revenue. Even keeping the highest tax bracket, for incomes of $1 million or more to only 35%, the country would get more revenue while the rich would contribute their fare share, somewhat reducing their high incomes.

You see, there really are magic bullets.  They’re just waiting to be found, aimed and fired at their appropriate targets.

When Is Time Up?

It seems as though life is filled with time limits. They are the expression of entropy in a finite world. Everything that begins must end. But how do we know when that is?

This question is coming up with greater frequency of late.

In Oakland, a 13 year-old child died unexpectedly from complications during a tonsillectomy.  She was pronounced absolutely brain dead by three top neurologists. Her body was kept alive mechanically. The family felt that since she was still warm, she was still alive and should be kept that way by hospital staff until the child regains consciousness. There was no way that would ever happen. They went to court to force the hospital to keep the dead child alive at hospital or taxpayer expense. After several court-ordered delays, the court finally allowed the hospital to do the obvious and take the dead teen off life support.

In Florida, a misguided hospital staff insisted a brain dead pregnant woman whose fetus was 14 weeks old, must be kept alive until the baby can be born, against the wishes of the family. A court finally ruled that the hospital staff had no idea what they were doing and ordered the woman taken off life support. The hospital then asked the family to pay the costs of keeping the woman alive against their wishes.

Years ago Congress got involved in a case of a brain dead woman kept alive for 15 years because her parents wanted her to recover. When she was finally taken of life support, an autopsy was conducted. It found there was nothing left of her brain. The deceased was completely empty headed.

We have hundreds of thousands of people in hospitals and nursing homes with no chance of ever improving and unable to take care of themselves. We have tens of thousands of people on end life dialysis, being kept alive daily with painful treatments which when ended result in almost immediate death. All dialysis costs are paid by taxpayers. 

Thanks to the marvels of modern medicine, we are able to live much longer. Heart blockages leading to heart attacks can be opened while totally blocked arteries can be replaced. People with heart conditions can get bypasses, pacemaker/defibrillator implants, mechanical hearts and even new hearts through transplant. Most of our organs can now be replaced. Cancer fighting drugs have been developed that can target cancer cells and destroy them. Work is being done to replace external parts like ears, noses, arms and legs.

The majority of national healthcare costs are for people in the very end of their lives in order for them to cheat death just a little bit longer.

It is now the same with our favorite pets. While dogs used to last only a few years 50 years ago, with many killed prematurely in traffic accidents or by natural causes like cancer and heart disease, many now live well into their teens. Pet owners now spend thousands to fight their pet’s cancer or heart disease or to provide devices to enable their loyal furry friend to walk or at least roll. Dog owners are now finding themselves having to decide when their beloved canine must die. It is very painful decision and one that is put off as long as possible.

And end dates don’t only apply to living creatures. When should a T.V. series end? When should a public policy end as we saw with affirmative action, school busing, segregated schools, discrimination against gays in the military and the military draft? These are difficult but necessary planning decisions known as management. 

Now we face new decisions about end dates.

When should we get out of Afghanistan? The vast majority of Americans say “immediately.” But those who fought and sacrificed there want to see our troops remain for as long as ten more years to make sure that all they accomplished with 17 years of war would not be lost.

When should we end the extension of unemployment benefits to those who have been receiving benefits for more than six months already? The extension expired in December and has not been renewed. Should the extended benefits be allowed to end now that the unemployment has fallen to almost 4% from a high of almost 10%? We sometimes forget and are never reminded, that under the best of economic circumstances, the unemployment will be between 4 and 5%, meaning millions of Americans will always be unemployed.

When should a relationship end? How do we know that it is really irreconcilable? Should couples stay together for the sake of the children or would everyone be better off if the two parted?

In today’s journalism the question has been when should coverage of a story end. Clearly some stories go on much longer than they should because they help raise advertising revenues. We see this with natural disasters and perverse political stories as well as juicy crime sagas.

Some reporters seem so taken with their own verbiage, that they extend their columns well past the needed length not wanting to end the experience. Not so with this column.

It ends here.

Evolution and Free Will

Most people who read this column would admit to believing in the theory of evolution and in Man’s free will. The theory of evolution posits that evolution occurs through natural selection with the survival of the fittest. Every religion, especially Western ones, insist that even though there is an all knowing, all powerful G-d in control of the universe, every person has free will. Free will is described as the ability of individuals to freely choose their path in decision they make. Some consider free will Man’s greatest vanity.

We all believe these ideas until they involve real people or the things we love.

Yes, there is the survival of the fittest, but every human and most animal species should survive, regardless. We believe that any human death before age 100 is a tragedy. The unborn child who has major health complications should not be allowed to pass away and should even get surgery while still in the mother to prevent a still birth. No cost should be spared. A human life is at stake.

If a person sustains a totally debilitating injury or is so advanced in age that s/he will never function independently and can never contribute to society, we must spend whatever necessary to make the person as comfortable as possible for as long as possible. Every human life is precious.

If a teenager gets killed after trying to kill someone else, it is a tragedy and the killer is at fault even though it was self defense. His parents are due damages from someone with deep pockets. No young person should die, no matter what.

If an animal species is facing extinction because it cannot adapt to changes in its environment, the environment should be changed to allow the species to survive. Every species is essential to the planet’s survival.

If a business can no longer sustain itself with costs exceeding revenues and faces bankruptcy, we morn their loss after all efforts to save it fail.

If some people lose their job for any reason, they should be entitled to every possible safety net to keep them going. Everyone must survive economically.

If people’s lives are threatened because of the loss of functioning in an essential organ or a painful joint or a missing a limb, every effort must be exerted to fix or replace the damaged part. Soon we will be able to replace deadened heart tissue with our own stem cells. We will be able to give hearing to those who have lost it, sight to those who cannot see as well as replace any body part. We want everyone to survive regardless of their fitness.

And then there is free will. Free will means that we are each responsible for our actions because we choose them freely. But there are many allowed exceptions.

If a person is homeless because of mental illness and/or substance abuse, we realize that it is not that person’s fault. We feel that we should do whatever we can to help the homeless and we tolerate whatever they do, no matter how unpleasant, because they can’t help themselves, they have no free will. (Yet, we invite them to stay in shelters but only if they freely choose to do so.)

If people come to our land without documentation, invitation or permission because they are poor and see no future in their native country, we say that they are not to blame. They had no choice. We understand that they might drive without license or insurance, that they might purchase fake I.D. or use someone else’s Social Security number to get work. What choice do they have? All they want is to work and earn a living. If they commit crimes or have vehicular accidents, we realize that their situation forced them to do what they did, they had no free will.

If people live a certain lifestyle, it is said that they had no choice, they were born that way. Some are said to have known since an early age that they were different.  Some realize much later in life that they actually were born to be different. In any case, the argument is that since they have no free will as to what lifestyle to choose, all choices should be considered equal, since we are all created equal, at least according to our Founding Fathers’ Declaration.

In a sense, all these rationales have some basis.

Humans are perhaps members of the only species that knows that their finite existence will surely end in death. We know, if only instinctively, that life's entropy, the force we battle our whole lives, will finally defeat us. We want to fight this force until the death.

And on one level, everything is predetermined. If there is an all knowing and powerful G-d, then there can be no free will, He already knows what we will do. If we are each infinite or part of the infinite, there is no free choice, everything just is a part of a much larger interdependent pattern. If we are mainly products of our genetic makeup and our early childhood experiences over which which we had no control, then how can we be said to act freely? If we are bound by the structure of our brains which predispose us to different thoughts, feelings and resultant actions, can we be held responsible for our actions?

So should we believe in evolution and free will?

 What choice do we have?

 Our survival is at stake.

A Journalist's Insight

Frank Read (not his real name) is 51 years old, approximately, and has spent much of his adult life as a journalist reporting for the mainstream media. His professors taught him lessons that most journalists still follow. The main one being always make the story personal by involving an affected person. The feeling widely-accepted in the profession was that reporting should be kept simple so that people with very little education could relate to it and continue to buy the publication or watch the news program. Simple people need short sentences and human drama that is sensational enough to grab their attention and they might get confused by statistics, data, comparisons or in depth investigation. One editor put it more clearly: “keep it simple, stupid.”

But Frank has had a change of heart. He no longer believes what he was taught and what his fellow journalists still practice on a daily, routine and thoughtless basis.

He recently watched a news segment on his favorite news hour about the effects of the low minimum wage that is currently just over $7 an hour. Instead of showing us what that means to an average full time worker and how it compares to the rest of the work force in dollars and cents, it showed us a woman who was a supervisor at a fast food chain in New York City. She made more than the minimum, but still only about $9 an hour. We learned that after taxes are taken out, she must use the little she has left to buy food and pay rent for her recently laid off husband, two aged parents and two children as well as herself. We see that it takes only a few days to use up her earnings. Frank notices that there is no mention of food stamps and wonders why this woman would not be eligible. The reporter caught that too and asked the woman about. She explained it lapsed for some reason. The reporter had her go and reapply, and she got food stamps for her family of six.

Frank noticed that no mention was made of the husband’s unemployment insurance checks which could be as high as $600 a week. The report forgot to mention that the two elders were eligible to either Social Security retirement, if they ever worked, or SSI if they never did. This would add $1500 to $3000 a month. The report also did not mention the rent subsidy that reduces the rental cost of her apartment. It did not mention that she would owe and pay no federal or state income taxes and would receive earned income credit that could be as high as $4000 from the government.

Frank realized how much more accurate and effective it might have been had they not used this person’s example, flawed as it was and as it usually is for a variety of reasons including confidentiality, not wanting to embarrass, not knowing enough to ask and wanting to make it sensational. They could have told us that a full time worker is paid for about 2000 hours a year. At $7.50 an hour, that comes to $15,000 a year. The report could have shown this to be below the poverty level for a family of four. It could have tracked how much a minimum wage worker earns for his employer. It could have compared the worker’s wages with that of the CEO and show the latter to be thousands percent more - $15,000 versus $300,000 or more. The report could have shown how much the government spends to subsidize these low wage earners and how the government is actually also subsidizing the employer by making up for what he doesn’t pay. But Frank saw that none of this was done. The report could have shown how much food stamp and other transfer payment costs would decline if the wage rate were raised significantly.

Frank started noticing this everywhere. Fellow reporters were trying to personalize every disaster by interviewing as many victims as possible for as long as possible. The victims could never tell the whole story but the part they did say was always similar: “We have been here for a long time and have lost everything. We are grateful that none of us died and we will rebuild knowing this will happen again. There is nowhere we would rather live.”

Frank noticed his colleagues doing the same with news stories by asking people on the street what they think. The answers range from admission of total ignorance as in “I didn’t know it happened” to “I think it is a good idea as long as it works,” to some limited comment reflecting a minimum of thought.

It has dawned on Frank that his professors and colleagues have been wrong. The public needs to know as much as possible that is relevant to each story. He realizes that he is not a stenographer just quoting what people said and he is not a salesman trying to make the story interesting enough, while not necessarily accurate.

He has reformed and promises to no longer condescend to his reading public with heart wrenching stories of personal tragedies. He won’t use an individual to generalize a situation.

He even objects to my using him as an example of this overused and lazy form of journalism. I apologize. I don’t know what I was thinking.