The Obama Legacy

When a young junior senator from Illinois ran for president in 2008, he promised to bring us hope and change. Now eight years later, what is his legacy?

He promised to get us out of the Middle East after his predecessor invaded Iraq based on false information cost us thousands of American lives and trillions of tax dollars. He got us out of Iraq as promised and made plans to get the Afghans to take over protecting their country from radical Muslims called the Taliban. He made it clear that this was not anything against Islam, a religion dedicated to peace. The Afghans are still not able to protect their people against the Taliban and need some of troops to stay to help.

He promised to make healthcare coverage affordable and voluntary. He wanted to have a public option to complement or compete with private carriers. No longer would applicants be denied coverage for preconditions.

We did get a healthcare reform but it was not the one he wanted or promised. Americans without coverage would be forced to get it or face financial penalties. Healthy Americans were needed to offset the cost of unhealthy ones, we were told. There would be no public option. Those who could not pay would be subsidized by the government. This was not what he wanted but was persuaded by the House leadership under Nancy Pelosi that this was the only way.

The Affordable Care Act was neither affordable for the middle class nor did it provide care until the premiums and the deductibles were met. Sometimes this meant that in addition to paying $6,000 a year for the insurance, there was a deductible of as much as $5,000 to $10,000 a year, meaning that this was not coverage but rather insurance for any amount above the combined annual cost. Private insurers were dropping out because they were losing money. They became aware that one unhealthy patient could cost as much as 50 or 100 healthy ones. There would be no way to have the healthy ones make up the difference.

The president, his health secretary and his minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, were advised that there was an easy way to fix this deteriorating situation. They could make enrollment voluntary and allow private insurers to reject any applicant for medical or financial reasons. Those rejected would be immediately eligible to the public option, which would be more like Medicare than Medicaid. Those denied for medical reasons would have a share of cost but no deductible and those denied for financial reasons would have little or no share of cost and no deductibles. This then would be affordable health coverage as opposed to unaffordable health insurance.

He and his people rejected all solutions and insisted on pressing on no matter what.

He was facing an economic collapse and took steps to save the banks and two of our car companies, one of which is now owned by the Italian carmaker, Fiat. He helped the private sector create 16 million jobs that were lost during the crisis. The unemployment rate went from more than 10% with 800,000 jobs lost each month to a rate of almost down to 4.5% with more than 200,000 jobs added each month for a record number of months. The stock market went from 6,000 to almost 20,000. But he gave up on getting back any of the manufacturing jobs we lost through outsourcing. His people claimed the low skill manufacturing jobs were lost forever and blamed automation instead of outsourcing.

He advocated raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour from its current $7.25 per hour rate. Since then many cities and states have raised their minimum rates to as high as $15 per hour. Average worker incomes have increased by almost 3% as a result.

He had appointed his former Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady, to be Secretary of State in 2009. She promised to reset our frosty relationship with Russia and to champion human rights, especially in the Middle East where women and minorities were being subjugated. Encouraged by the fall of Iraq’s strong man and then by the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, she promoted efforts in Egypt, Yemen and Syria to overthrow their longtime dictators, thus interfering with the internal politics of their countries. What followed was the destabilization of Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and Syria. This chaos gave rise to radical Islamists known as Al Qaeda and later ISIS in this area. Our relationship with Russia has never been worse.

He promised to close Gitmo and did much to reduce the population there but was prevented by congress from moving the remaining prisoners to available American prisons. Those who remain there are costing an estimated $10 million a year each.

He promised to unite us saying that there was not a red America or a blue America, no white America or black America. We would be one nation, indivisible. Eight years later, the country is more divided than ever.

When a young high school football player was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, the president sided with the young man saying that it could have been him as a young man or his son had he had one. It turned out that the young man was killed to stop him from beating the volunteer to death all because the man had asked him what he was doing in the gated community.

When a police officer shot and killed a six foot five inch 300 pound former high school football player, the president again sided with the young man who was killed. It turned out that he too was killed in self defense and did not have his hands up when he was shot. He was trying to kill the officer who stopped him for having committed a strong-arm robbery minutes before. The president did not intervene and the town rioted for more than four months.

Whenever cases like these came up, it seemed that President Obama sided with the assailant rather than the police who risk their lives daily to protect us. It happened again in Staten Island when a six foot five inch 400 pound man with severe heart, kidney and diabetes problems resisted his 30th arrest. He died of a heart attack while police tried to arrest him. 

It happened again in Baltimore when a young drug dealer reacted to his 20th arrest of the year and hit his head accidentally while being transported to jail. The mayor of that city immediately decided that the police were guilty and awarded the young man’s destitute mother $6.5 million before the case went to trial. It turned out that none of the six cops were found guilty. In the next six weeks there were 56 homicides. All but one victim and one killer were black. That year there was a record number of homicides almost all affecting black victims.

His siding with alleged victims of police overreach resulted in a 50% increase in homicides of police officers making some police less motivated to aggressively pursue the criminal element. The result in the president’s own Chicago neighborhood has been a dramatic increase in murders to almost 800 this year with 78% of the victims being black and 17% being Latino.  

But this past year, the president really went off track. He decided to enter the presidential race to promote his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton. Unlike any sitting president before him, he went on the campaign trail for her, along with his wife, Michelle, and his Vice President, Joe Biden,  presumably using taxpayer money for the tremendous expense it entailed. Truman did not campaign for Stevenson. The very popular Ike did not do it for his own vice president, Nixon. Reagan did not do it for his V.P. Bush. Clinton did not campaign for his V.P., Gore. Young Bush did not campaign for Romney.

The president insisted that Hillary was the best prepared to be president, more than anyone ever was. He forgot that Bush Sr. had been Vice President for eight years, head of the CIA, a congressman and a war hero. He forgot that Nixon had been a V.P. for eight years, a congressman and naval officer. How well did they do?

The president promised that Mr. Trump would never be president. He then had to eat his words. When a minority of Americans tried to undo the results of the election, he did not step up and tell them that what they were doing was un-American and was an assault on our democratic system. As a result, some Americans felt encouraged to do whatever they could to overthrow the results.

He had tried to reduce the number of immigrants who came to the country illegally until a few years ago when those on the left decried it. He then allowed and encouraged hundreds of thousands of interlopers from Central America to enter the country unimpeded and to disperse into the American countryside with hopes of future citizenship.

And just this past month, he gave Israel, our country’s greatest ally and the homeland for the world’s most besieged people, a knife in the back by instructing his U.N. representative to not veto a resolution that every other administration had. I
The president’s legacy is both great and unfortunate. He overcame great obstacles but put others in his way. Many of us voted for him and believed in him. He has left us with a mixed legacy.

       


 

Why a Lifelong Voter for Democrats No Longer Is One

I was born to European immigrants who always voted Democrat.

My parents always voted Democrat, because of FDR, who defeated Hitler and granted my mother and her first husband a special visa to enter this country.

I have always voted Democrat. I voted for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton twice and believed that Clinton completely reflected my beliefs. When stories came out about his infidelities, I blamed his behavior on his difficult childhood - never knowing who his father really was and having to deal with an alcoholic step father. I easily forgave him his trespasses.

When George Bush succeeded him, I hoped that he would do well because our country depended on it. I was terribly disappointed. I couldn’t believe that we had invaded Iraq and feared his tax cuts for the rich would cripple our economy. My worst fears were realized.

I was so relieved to see a young senator from Illinois become our next president. He seemed very pragmatic and centrist. I disregarded claims that he was against white Americans or that he had some hidden agenda.

He promised to get us out of the Middle East and to bring about healthcare reform. He promised to make healthcare coverage affordable and voluntary. He wanted to have a public option to complement or compete with private carriers who would no longer reject applicants for preconditions. He promised to unite us saying that there was not a red America or a blue one. We would be one nation, indivisible.

We did get a healthcare reform but it was not the one he wanted or promised. Americans without coverage would be forced to get it or face financial penalties. Healthy Americans were needed to offset the cost of unhealthy ones, we were told. Those who could not pay would be subsidized by the government. This was not what he wanted but was persuaded by the House leadership under Nancy Pelosi that this was the only way.

He was facing an economic collapse and took steps to save the banks and two of our car companies. He helped the private sector create jobs that were lost during the crisis.

He got us out of Iraq as promised and made plans to get the Afghans to take over protecting their country from radical Muslims called the Taliban. He made it clear that this was not anything against Islam, a religion dedicated to peace.

He had appointed his former Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady, to be Secretary of State in 2009. She promised to reset our frosty relationship with Russia and to champion human rights, especially in the Middle East where women and minorities were being subjugated. Encouraged by the fall of Iraq’s strongman and then by the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, she promoted efforts in Egypt, Yemen and Syria to overthrow their longtime dictators. What followed was the destabilization of Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and Syria. This chaos gave rise to radical Islamists known as Al Qaeda and later ISIS in this area.

The president declined to call this an Islamic-based radicalism not wanting anyone to think that there was any relationship between the religion and violence.

He promised to close Gitmo and did much to reduce the population there but was prevented from moving the remaining prisoners to available American prisons. Those who remain there are costing an estimated $10 million a year each.

The Affordable Care Act was neither affordable for the middle class nor did it provide care until the premiums and the deductibles were met. Sometimes this meant that in addition to paying $6,000 a year for the insurance, there was a deductible of as much as $5,000 to $10,000 a year, meaning that this was not coverage but rather insurance for any cost above the combined annual cost. Private insurers were dropping out because they were losing money. They became aware that one unhealthy patient could cost as much as 50 or 100 healthy ones. There would be no way to have the healthy ones make up the difference.

The president, his health secretary and his minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, were advised that there was an easy way to fix this deteriorating situation. They could make enrollment voluntary and allow private insurers to reject any applicant for medical or financial reasons. Those rejected would be immediately eligible to the public option which would be 100% federally funded. Those denied for medical reasons would have a share of cost but no deductible and those denied for financial reasons would have no share of cost and no deductibles. This then would be affordable health coverage as opposed to unaffordable health insurance.

He and his people rejected all solutions and insisted on pressing on no matter what.

The president failed to unite the nation when he repeatedly took the side of black Americans. When a Harvard professor was seemingly mistreated by a Cambridge, Mass. police sergeant, Mr. Obama sided with the professor before knowing the whole story. When a young high school football player was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, the president sided with the young man saying that it could have been him as a young man or his son had he had one. It turned out that the young man was killed to stop him from beating the volunteer to death because the man had asked him what he was doing in the gated community. A jury that included six mothers found the accused innocent because he killed in self defense. The Attorney General promised a full investigation and found that from day one it was obviously a case of self defense. The shooter, though innocent, is still considered a pariah by the unthinking public.

When a police officer shot and killed a former high school football player, the president again sided with the young man who was killed. It turned out that he too was killed in self defense and did not have his hands up when he was shot. He was trying to kill the officer who stopped him for having committed a strong-arm robbery minutes before. The president did not intervene and the town rioted for more than four months.

Whenever cases like these came up, it seemed that President Obama sided with the assailant rather than the police who risk their lives daily to protect us. It happened again in Staten Island when a six foot five inch 400 pound man with severe heart, kidney and diabetes problems resisted his 30th arrest. He died of a heart attack while police tried to arrest him. When the mayor of New York came out against the grand jury findings that the police were not at fault, the president sided with the mayor.  Days later a person killed two New York police officers feeling justified because even the mayor was against the police.

It happened again in Baltimore when a young drug dealer reacted to his 20th arrest of the year and hit his head accidentally while being transported to jail. The mayor of that city immediately decided that the police were guilty and awarded the young man’s destitute mother $6.5 million before the case went to trial. It turned out that none of the six cops were found guilty. The rioters broke into pharmacies and stole drugs that could be sold on the street. In the next six weeks there were 56 homicides. All but one victim and one killer were black. That year there was a record number of homicides almost all affecting black victims.

But this past year, the president really went off track. He decided to enter the presidential race to promote his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, his former opponent turned secretary of state. Unlike any president before him, along with his wife, Michelle, and his Vice President, Joe Biden, he went on the campaign trail for her, presumably using taxpayer money for the tremendous expense it entailed. No other sitting president in memory campaigned for his successor. Truman did not campaign for Stevenson. The very popular Ike did not do it for his own vice president, Nixon. Reagan did not do it for his V.P. Bush. Clinton did not campaign for his V.P., Gore. Young Bush did not campaign for Romney.

The president insisted that Hillary was the best prepared to be president, more than anyone ever was. He forgot that Bush Sr. had been Vice President for eight years, head of the CIA, a congressman and a war hero. He forgot that Nixon had been a V.P. for eight years, a congressman and naval officer. How well did they do?

The president promised that Mr. Trump would never be president. He then had to eat his words. When a minority of Americans tried to undo the results of the election, he did not step up and tell them that what they were doing was un-American and was an assault on our democratic system. As a result, some Americans felt encouraged to do whatever they could to overthrow the results.

The president told us that our country was created and made great by diversity. He perhaps forgot that the founding fathers, every president before him except one, and almost every legislator was a white Protestant. This is clearly a white Protestant nation.  Diversity is fine but it did not make this country what it is today, for better or worse.  He neglected to consider this obvious fact because it appears that he wanted to change our culture to make it less white and less Christian. He refrained from wishing us Merry Christmas for fear offending the few who might take offense by it.

He had tried to reduce the number of immigrants who came to the country illegally until a few years ago when those on the left decried it. He then allowed and encouraged hundreds of thousands of interlopers from Central America to enter the country unimpeded and to disperse into the American countryside with hopes of future citizenship.

And just this past week, he gave Israel, our country’s greatest ally and the homeland for the world’s most besieged people, a knife in the back by instructing his U.N. representative to not veto a resolution that every other president had. It gave false legitimacy to the Paletine region by declaring that its sovereignty had been violated by Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The residents of this region had never had self rule or national status. They had been part of Jordan until the Arab states invaded Israel in 1967 in an attempt to destroy the new nation that was established by the U.N. Israel was victorious humiliating the many Arab states and took back the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank for security reasons.

In an effort to promote peace in the region, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and later deserted its settlements in Gaza giving its residents autonomy. The people of Gaza reacted by putting in power Hamas, a terrorist organizations that vowed to drive Israel into the sea. The terrorists sent 20,000 rockets into Israel as a thank you note. Knowing this, President Obama still seemed to side with the Arabs against Israel.

The President now has one last choice to make. He can fully endorse his successor, encourage his fellow Americans to do likewise and show his solidarity by attending the inauguration on January 20th.

He would be well to realize that people remember the end more than the beginning. He should do whatever he can in his last few weeks in office to help us remember him well. He owes it to all us who believed in him and wished him great success. He owes it to simple decency.

I hope he does the right thing in the end.       

Why She Lost

After 18 months of primaries and the election, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party were stunned to learn that their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, lost to a political novice who seemed to be able to annoy everyone while drawing record crowds. Hillary had everyone rooting for her and doing whatever they could to secure the presidency for her. Even much of his own party was against its candidate, Trump.

The president actually campaigned for Hillary as did his wife, Michelle and his vice president, Joe Biden. I can recall no sitting president campaigning for his successor. Truman did not campaign for Stevenson; Ike did not campaign for Nixon, his vice president; Reagan did not campaign for his V.P Bush; Clinton didn’t do it for Gore and young Bush did not hit the circuit for McCain. The president told us that no one has ever been better prepared to be president than Hillary was.  He forgot about George, Sr. having been V.P. for eight years, head of the CIA, an ambassador, a congressman and a decorated naval officer. He forgot about Nixon who also was a V.P. for eight years and a congressman before that. How well did they do?

As we found out a few months ago, thanks to Wikileaks, Hillary had the DNC and CNN doing whatever they could to make Hillary the successful candidate. So how did she lose?

Here are some possible reasons:

Maybe it was in part because some people learned about Hillary’s first jobs out of law school. She defended a middle-aged man accused of raping a 12 year-old girl. The evidence was overwhelming. Hillary argued that the 12 year old was in part to blame because she might have been into older men.

She went on to be an attorney for the Watergate hearings but was fired because her boss thought she was dishonest.

Maybe some people knew about the way Hillary treated women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct. She scorned Gennifer Flowers, who claimed to be Bill’s longtime mistress. She ridiculed Paula Jones and called the 22 year old intern, who claimed having sex with Bill in the Oval Office, a bimbo. Bill denied all the allegations. He ended up confessing to his affair with Flowers, paid Paula Jones $850,000 for trying to put something much larger than a tongue down her throat and he confessed to having sex with Monica after she produced a stained blue dress. He was impeached for lying about it.

During the campaign Hillary announced that if a woman claims to have been raped or otherwise violated, you must believe her. But even that was wrong. Remember the rape claims by Tawana Brawley who claimed to have been raped by five white, NYC police officers? It turned out to be false but made her defender, Al Sharpton, rich and famous enough to owe $4.5 million in back taxes. Remember the stripper who claimed that some Duke lacrosse players raped her? That too was a lie. Recently, the U. of Virginia coed lied about being raped by fraternity boys, ruining the career of a college dean and a campus fraternity as well as the “Rolling Stone” magazine that published the falsehood.

Maybe some people remembered her time in the White House when Bill was president. They might still recall Travelgate when she tried to fire the entire travel office staff to give jobs to friends. Maybe they recall the mysterious death of Vincent Foster, Bill’s friend since the first grade and Hillary’s friend from the Rose Law Firm. He was being called to testify against her. Or it could have been her failure to produce a viable health care reform plan without inviting sufficient input. She felt that she didn’t need any help. Or it could have been the fact that she and Bill were trying to remove $200,000 worth of furnishings and gifts when leaving the White House. They were blocked and forced to return their loot.

Maybe people are more concerned with more recent problems. When she lost her bid in 2008 against an inexperienced young senator, she was given a chance to redeem herself as Secretary of State. She failed to “reset” relations with Russia and only made them much worse. She turned on longtime leaders of Middle East countries like Yemen, Syria, Egypt and Libya. The leaders had always been brutal but they kept their countries together. When they were overthrown, with U.S. support, the countries fell into chaos and a “J.V. terrorist team” called ISIS was born to fill the gaps. She and the president would not call them Islamic terrorists because they didn’t want us to think that Islam, a religion of peace, had anything to do with ISIS - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

It could have been in part because of Benghazi and all the bad judgement and dishonesty involved in even having an embassy there to begin with, then not providing sufficient security, then delaying a response by as much as 14 hours, and then lying to their families about the cause of the disaster that killed four Americans stationed there.

Perhaps it was her email server and the missing 33,000 emails. We heard her swear that there was no classified information transmitted but the FBI found that there were as many as 100 secret or classified emails on her private server. Some people don’t approve of lying to the public, Congress and the FBI.

When leaving her state Department office she again tried to steal the furniture to use in her home. She was caught again and forced to return the stolen items. Some people don’t like thieves, especially rich ones who don’t need to steal.

Maybe it was the fact that when she left office she got huge speaker’s fees, more than $250,000 each, from Wall Street firms.  They weren’t paying for her investment advice but to gain influence and access should she become president as it seemed likely she would. She refused to release the content of these lucrative speeches when called to do so by her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, who was campaigning against Wall Street and its excesses, like paying huge fees to potential presidential candidates. When the content was revealed by Wikileaks, more people might have been angered. She said that she was for open borders which would mean mass migration to the States and a loss of our national value system becoming a modern Tower of Babble.

Maybe some were unhappy with her promise to all here illegally that they would all become American citizens. Illegal immigration surged on the prospect.

Maybe it got even worse when she vowed to take in 55,000 refugees from the Middle East and Africa in her first year. Some in Detroit might have been angered to hear her husband Bill declare that the 10,000 vacant houses in Detroit could be fixed up and given to Syrian refugees instead of Detroit residents.

Maybe it was her terrible campaign style. She yelled and barked instead of using normal speech and spent more time and energy denigrating her opponent than coming out with innovative ideas for improving our conditions. Maybe that was because she had no real ideas or plans other than being elected.

Her idea for fixing a failing Affordable Care Act, also known as Pelosicare, was to get applicants five free doctor’s visits per year. That’s it. Her idea for fixing the tax code was to promise not to raise taxes on the middle class and to eliminate a few obvious loopholes that help the rich, like her.

Maybe it was the realization that she and her friends in the DNC were stacking the deck on her only party opponent by giving HRC a 500 super-delegate lead before Bernie even entered the race. Super-delegates usually wait until the end of the primary to make their judgement so it doesn’t appear like a pre-judgement. It got worse when we learned that a CNN contributor who was also the DNC chair, Donna Brazile, fed Hillary some of the questions that she might be asked in the upcoming debate and offered to get her more as they become available.

Maybe some people didn’t like her pandering. She was for NAFTA until Bernie and others said it hurt American workers. She called the new Pan Pacific Free Trade Agreement, still waiting to be approved, the gold standard until Bernie said it would hurt U.S. workers. Then she was against it. When Bernie promised free public university tuition for everyone, she agreed to make it free to all low income families. Her definition of "low income" was families who make as little as $125,000 a year or about 90% of American households.

Maybe it was her calling one half of all of her opponents supporters “a basket of deplorables” being sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic and homophobic. She also attributed the same characteristics to her opponent.

Maybe some were concerned about her health. She testified before the FBI and Congress that because of a recent brain injury she couldn’t recall the answers to about 30 questions regarding her previous actions. These concerns grew when she collapsed at a ceremony and was rushed to her 35 year old daughter’s $11 million Manhattan apartment that included a medical facility for just such occasions.

Maybe she was hurt by the fact that at one point 88% of voters said they didn’t trust her.

Maybe her pick of a running mate reduced her chances. He admitted to being boring and that turned out to be the truest and most exciting thing he said from then on. Maybe it was his slovenly appearance that made him look like he was still hungover. It also could not have helped hearing him patronize his audiences of Americans of Latino backgrounds by speaking to them in Spanish as though they could not quite master English, the language of their chosen nation. And his only debate performance showed that he wasn’t even a nice guy, the only positive thing anyone ever said about him.

Maybe it was the fact that when it came right down to it, the only reasons to vote for her were that she was a woman, a Democrat, was not the Donald and /or that was going to maintain the status quo.

This while her opponent offered to end illegal immigration that hurts young minority job seekers more than anyone else. He promised to bring manufacturing back providing not only jobs but self reliance. America has gone from producing 90% of its needed goods and services in the 1960s to 2% today. He promised to put Americans first in our trade agreements and spending priorities. He vowed to stop our attempts at nation building and funding the lion’s share to protect Europe against a Soviet Union that no longer exists.

Now she blames her loss on James Comey who announced that he would not prosecute her, the media which was totally against Trump, She blames the Russians and the fact that she had to compete against a well known entertainer. She also blames it on misogyny, even though her main appeal was that she was a woman. She blames everyone but herself for her failure to win the election when in fact it was all her fault.

Even her slogan, “I’m with her” now appears to have come to her while she was looking at herself in the mirror.

Maybe the fact of the matter is that she did it to herself by being who she was and doing what she did. Her donors blew more than $1.5 billion on a candidate destined to fail while her opponent spent less than a tenth as much and won overwhelmingly. It turns out you just can’t buy elections anymore.

The minority party that has lost the White House, the Senate and the House since 2010 must realize that they have to move back to the center and put America first. The lesson for Nancy Pelosi and her followers is as old as the Greeks: Arrogance leads to blindness. Be humble and open your eyes wide.






 

Fixing The Affordable Care Act

Now that we are about to have a new President and administration, changes in the Affordable care Act (ACA) are inevitable, but what should they be? What are the problems that beg solution?

Private insurers who are covering about ten million Americans under the ACA are losing money even though all people without health coverage through their employer, on their own or through the federal government are required to sign up for coverage. The idea was that there would be enough healthy applicants to offset the cost of covering people with serious medical preconditions like heart disease and cancer. But there aren’t and there probably never could be enough. If one unhealthy patient needs life saving treatment like a heart transplant or extensive cancer treatment, it could cost millions of dollars. One healthy patient might pay $2,000 a year. It would take 500 healthy patients to pay for each unhealthy one like this.

But the ACA wanted to end the use of preconditions in evaluating coverage and so they thought that making everyone get it would offset their cost. In order to enforce  signups, those who did not sign up were to be charged penalties. They are now up to 2% of annual income.

Now that private insurers are withdrawing from the markets, one in five applicants will have only one private insurer to choose from, which is no choice at all. And the plans include high deductibles making it unlikely that the insured will ever get any benefit unless there is a catastrophic injury or illness. 

The majority of Americans do not like the ACA and want the new President to fix it. I have a suggestion for a way to make coverage voluntary, less expensive, and without deductibles.

First let all private insurers reject any applicant for medical reasons. Those rejected would immediately be eligible to the “public option” which will be a government-run program similar to Medicare and Medicaid. There will be a share of cost and there will be no deductibles. Those with low incomes who would be eligible to Medicaid, had their states expended the coverage under the ACA, would also receive the public option but with no share of cost.

Private insurers would lose some customers because they would not have to sign up. But the low income people who are not now able to get Medicaid in their state would make up for the lost enrollment by getting the public option.

Private insurers would have to compete for the healthy applicants who are no longer a captive audience. Insurers would have to offer competitive rates mindful that they could not use deductibles to avoid the first $5,000 of medical costs, more than most healthy members use.

Since getting coverage would no longer be mandatory, there would be no fines for non compliance as there are now.

And, yes, the taxpayer would have to pay the cost of these high risk patients, but we do anyway. The government has been reimbursing/ subsidizing both the rate payers and the insurers. Currently 5% of the population uses 50% of our healthcare dollars. The government needs to find ways to reduce these costs with changes in diets, exercise regimes, early interventions, drug and surgical treatments and in end -of-life decisions. In a sense, these high cost individuals are society’s responsibility since most have suffered poverty and its associated problems.

The result should make everyone happy. People with preconditions will always have coverage. People who cannot afford coverage and live in states that did not expand Medicaid, will have coverage. Those who do not want coverage do not have to get any. There will be no penalties for non-compliance.

Private insurers would provide more coverage for less and still make a profit.

The progressives will be happy to see a public option that could grow over time, not to compete with private companies but to complement them.

Conservatives will be happy because coverage will not be mandatory and the private option will be maintained, will not be threatened by single payer universal coverage, also known as socialized medicine.

Problem solved!

No Truth in Labeling

One of the most interesting and disturbing aspects of this year’s coverage of the campaign for President was the way the media and people quoted in it found it easy to label people based on remarks or actions. Labeling allows us to quickly react emotionally without having to think much about it. Labeling also allows us to discredit everything the discredited says or does to dramatically limit free speech with which we disagree.

The two greatest Russian metaphysicians, George Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky, theorized that emotions are much faster than thoughts and that many of us have been conditioned to react emotionally to certain images formed by labels making most of us more like machines whose reactions are pre-programmed.

During this election cycle we have heard many people label others based on something that person had allegedly said or done. And worse yet, we saw people labeled by extending their past actions to extremes. The examples abound.

The main, but not only, focus was Donald Trump. He said that he wanted to build a wall on our southern border to stop illegal immigration from that direction. He said some illegals were bringing drugs, crime and even rape. This was translated as him saying that all Latinos are drug dealers and criminals. It was morphed into him being against all immigrants and that he was afraid of other cultures. He was labeled anti-immigrant, xenophobic and racist. When actually he was against illegal immigration. He married two immigrants, hired thousands and started businesses in countries all over the world. How is that being anti immigrant, racist or xenophobic?

He insulted several people. We don’t like people doing that and for good reason. He insulted a famous personality known for not mincing words. She insulted him and he insulted her. For insulting a woman he was labeled a sexist and possible misogynist. When we heard a tape of him talking like a teenager to a entertainment T.V. host with the mic still on, we were convinced. It was vulgar and immature. But it confirmed our label that he was a misogynist especially after a few women came out claiming to have experienced unwanted advances, which were then labeled sexual assaults. Misogynists hate women. That is exactly what the name means. How does what he said or did equal hatred of women? It shows the opposite - an immature attraction to women. People who hate women are very dangerous. They could kill them, hurt them, or just make their lives miserable. They do not have long loving relationships with wives and daughters.

Trump called for a delay in accepting Muslims from dangerous countries until we can be sure that they will not be a threat to Americans. He was labeled as hating all 1.3 billion Muslims. This concern about radicalized migrants also was seen as proof that he was xenophobic and racist.

He said he was against intervening in conflicts that do not have anything to do with us. Examples are Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen. He said that the U.S. is paying too much while other NATO countries are paying too little for their defense. He was labeled a treaty breaker and unwilling to aid other countries. He was labeled isolationist.

He reprinted a poster showing that his opponent was in with Wall Street. The poster had a star with some writing on it. The star was six pointed, the same as a Jewish star and the star worn by many law enforcement officers. But the star associated with money labeled him an anti-Semite. He has a daughter and two sons who are married to Jews. His eleven grandchildren are Jewish. His daughter became Jewish. The Prime Minister of Israel supported him. And Trump is anti-Semitic?

The people hear these labels and respond with anger and fear. They take their frustrations to the streets feeling justified to respond violently to someone labeled sexist, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and isolationist. The crowds become angry mobs spewing anger, hatred, vulgarity, and destruction while feeling self righteous and licensed to any level of abuse.

The lack of truth in labeling has brought out the worst in some of our people. It gave greater strength to the belief that the mainstream media is terribly biased. 

Political leaders and journalists have to be aware that they reach a wide audience and that the words they write or speak affect different parts of the population differently. Some take in the reports and balance them with other sources of information. But others with serious issues to deal with take this misinformation and overreact to it.

Now we hear that immigrants are worried and live in fear of immediate deportation from the Promised Land. Even though he said he would close the border and end illegal immigration, it does not mean that he will immediately deport 11 million people. He has said that he wants those who are involved in criminal activity to be identified and sent packing first. Then those who have arrived recently could be repatriated. But those who have been here and established roots will probably be safe. Still, we hear that even those not subject to removal are living in fear.

We hear reports that women are rushing to get birth control before Trump ends the Affordable Care Act as though that would happen immediately. If they would think rather than feel, they would realize that it would take at least a year or two to make any real changes to the ACA and even with them, they will still be able to get birth control. They are frightened without reason and it is not helpful.

Muslims living in this country are saying that they don’t feel safe now. This concern even though the issue has been accepting future refugees from countries having radical activity until they are fully vetted. It is not against all Muslims or all immigrants.   
We are seeing that there is a great cost to sensational, superficial and subjective reporting. This latest wave of examples is the most exaggerated form of it.

If we are at the beginning of a revolution against the status quo, let this status be no longer quo. Let us begin to insist on fair, honest, in depth reporting free of political bias, editorializing, and sensationalizing. Enough is enough! 

Whom Do You Trust?

When I was going to school on the west side of Manhattan in the mid 1950s, I used to get free tickets to see a new quiz show broadcast just down the block. The name of the show was “Who Do You Trust?” and was hosted by a young man from the Midwest named Johnny Carson.  He later replaced a future Westchester village neighbor of mine named Jack Paar on another show called “ The Tonight Show.”

I don’t remember what the quiz show was like anymore but do remember the incorrect grammar of it, “Who” instead of “Whom.”

But now the question arises in my mind on a more frequent basis.  Whom or who do I trust?  Whom should I trust?

We always trusted our priests. Now we know that there have been many abuses of young parishioners by Catholic priests and realize that though the mass media has never mentioned this, this practice has probably been going on for centuries.  And what made matters worse was that those on top of the church hierarchy covered up the crimes making more people subject to abuse.  Our evangelical leaders faired no better, not able to resist the sexual relations they preached against. And let us not forget the mullahs who preach hatred and violence to foster their campaign of the subjugation of women, their apparent raison d’etre and remain silent while their dictators slaughter their own people and their extremists torture innocents. Should or can we trust our religious leaders?

What about our bankers and financiers?  Can we trust them?  If you had money in Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo or Barclay’s, you have probably realized that you cannot trust them to put your welfare above or on a par with their own interests.  They actually admitted it to a congressional committee trying to find out what caused the financial crash of ’08. Companies like Goldman Sachs knowingly bundled bad loans and sold them to their own clients while actually betting against them at the same time. Why would anyone continue to do business with such companies, companies they can no longer trust?

But surely we can trust our doctors. Now we learn that there are at least 100,000 deaths a year due to hospital error. Every night on the national news we learn that the doctors were wrong about something else and that we should stop doing what they told us to do.  The drugs they offered women to prevent problems with their bones, only work for five years after which they actually cause bones to break.  Aspirin was recommended for everyone to avoid stroke, heart attacks and even cancer, now has been found to present too many other health risks and should be used only by people with known heart problems. Then there are mammograms, MRIs, x-rays all thought mainly beneficial now found to cause to potentially life threatening problems if overdone. We spend more on medicine than any other developed country and yet have some of the worst results.  Can we trust our physicians?

But what about our free press, blessed by our very first amendment to the Constitution, surely we can trust the media to give the information we need, or can we? Not only has our mass media been characterized as sensationalist and shallow or just inaccurate, it can also be biased.  We have seen them show their bias in cases involving racial violence, seeming to want to fan the flames of violence and destruction in their superficial and sensational reporting. There was the alleged “stand your ground” murder of an unarmed high school football player that turned out to be a clear case of self defense. There was the case of the unarmed former high school football player who allegedly was shot in the back while having his hands up. A grand jury and then the U.S. Justice Department found that he was attacking a police officer and his hands were not up. There was the case of the young drug dealer reacting to his 20th arrest of the year by thrashing around in a police van. He accidentally hit his head and died a few days later. The media blamed the six officers. The result of these misperceptions caused by biased, superficial and sensationalist reporting lead to riots which destroyed property and threatened lives.The riots in Baltimore based on misinformation resulted in 56 homicides in six weeks - a record even for Baltimore, once the murder capital of America. What the media did not report was that 55 of the victims were black as were their assailants.

But the media has outdone itself during this election cycle. The mainstream media has not tried to conceal its choice for our next president and has done whatever it could to make their hope a reality. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny.  We talk about the billionaires stealing this election, when it is the media which has left its fingerprints all over the crime scene. Talk about being superficial, sensational and subjective. It should be their slogan. The Times should change theirs to be “All the news that we see fit to print.” The result of this terrible reporting is mobs expressing fear and hatred while protesting against them. Tolerant people feeling they have license to be intolerant of those labeled intolerant and to hate those labeled as bigoted. They don’t see the irony in and hypocrisy of their misguided position.  

But at least we have our elected officials. At the core of our great nation’s democracy is representative government through free and open elections. American citizens can vote for and elect the person whom they feel best represents their interests. We have 535 people in Congress representing our best interests. Or are they?  Currently only nine percent of our people trust the Congress. You can only wonder who these nine percent are. 

It has also come to light that many of these legislators were also on the take. Some bought or sold stocks based on inside legislative information. Others accepted favors from corporations like free golf trips to Scotland on private corporate jets in exchange for favorable legislation. Still others allowed lobbyists to actually write legislation favorable to their efforts. The only word that comes to mind to describe such people is a five letter unmentionable name which begins with the letter “W” and is usually attributed to pliers of the second oldest profession. Using this term for legislators is an insult to their namesakes. Not even congress people trust congress people and they should know.

So who or whom does that leave? We can hopefully trust our family and friends, much of the time except when too much money is at stake. We can trust our instincts if they are conjoined with clear thinking and honest observation.

We can trust the exceptions to all these groups. There are some wonderful religious leaders in every religion with great faith and wisdom. There are even some honest bankers and financiers who put their clients first, give generously to charity and want to make this a better country. Banks are at the heart of our economy enabling families to borrow and save money to buy homes and pay for college tuition and helping businesses to develop and grow.

Our doctors have saved countless lives with skilled and innovative surgery and/or the prescription of appropriate medication. They are on the front lines fighting cancer, heart disease and the other medical causes of our suffering.  This very column would not exist if not for excellent surgeons who have performed numerous life-saving operations on behalf of its author.

There have also been courageous reporters like Morrow and Wallace but also Russert, Chronkite, Brinkley, Lehr, McNeil, and even Anderson Cooper on a good day. There were the great humorous news sources like Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert and we still have Bill Maher of Real Time.  I find that PBS can usually be relied upon for accurate and in depth reporting.

When it comes to our Congress, it seems hard to trust those on the right who are clearly in the wrong on some social and fiscal issues and those on the left who are moving us too far off center creating a culture of ubiquitous victimhood to expand their underdog base. Surely, there are congress people who truly love their country and try to work cooperatively to improve the lives of our people. However, no name comes to mind.

And when all else fails, you can trust this column to bring you ideas whose author truly believes will be of benefit to the you.  Trust me that I am someone whom you can trust.

Standing Up for Our Imperfect Country

A few weeks ago a highly paid football quarterback refused to stand with his team for the National Anthem because he felt that he could no longer stand in support of a country which allows several unarmed minority members to be shot to death by police. This courageous young athlete could not support an imperfect country.

Some intelligent, well meaning people came out in support of this brave display of America’s First Amendment right: freedom of speech. “You may not agree with him but we must respect his right to express himself,” we are told. “Americans gave their lives fighting in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to preserve our First Amendment rights,” we are reminded. “It has begun a conversation about this important issue,” we are asked to believe and to therefore forget all the conversation of the past two years.

Some intelligent and well meaning Americans have come out against this behavior calling it unpatriotic, ungrateful and not helpful, only adding fuel to the fire.

Some team fans are burning jerseys with the quarterback’s name and number. Sales are way up with the profits going to the cause. Many promise to stop watching the team which, though once great, appears to be headed for a losing season. Some are suggesting that the player be left seated throughout not only the anthem but the entire game until he is released from the roster. He has been seated lately but still earns more than $1 million a game or more than we pay the President of the United States in annual salary and benefits to work 24/7/365 to do the hardest, most important job in the world. And we hear that CEOs are overpaid.

This young rebel is protesting the fact that there have been several cases of apparent police use of unnecessary force resulting in the deaths of suspects and that this seems disproportionately to affect black men. In the past few years we have been made aware of videos showing police officers overreacting, often to people resisting arrest. While in several of the most publicized cases it was found by local juries and federal investigations that the officers were not at fault, there were several which seemed like definite cases of deadly overreaction.

Surely no American of sound mind thinks that the use of unnecessary force by police is ever acceptable. It is clear that some officers have the wrong attitude about their work and the public they serve and that they need to be either retrained or dismissed. Surely any American with a heart can empathize with grieving parents who lost their grown children for any reason, especially if by those sworn to serve and protect.

Understanding all this, I still feel that the young man’s decision to show disrespect for flag and country was very wrong and should not be encouraged or rationalized. 

Countries, like people, are never perfect - without fault. America is no exception even though it is considered exceptional. America is the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Americans believe in freedom and fairness but we don’t always practice it.

From our very beginning there have been cases of unfair lack of freedom. We were not fair to our hosts, the American Indians. We fought them, took their land, broke our treaties and then cheated them out of their royalties from oil found on their exiled land.

We were not very fair to slaves we brought from Africa. They were not considered to be equal to people of European ancestry. When slavery was ended after a few hundred years, blacks were mistreated under Jim Crow policies that kept them separate and unequal.

We were not very fair to Americans of Japanese heritage in the 1940s. Their freedom was denied them, without due process, when they were removed from their homes and sent to resettlement centers for fear that they might help the Japanese invade America. This overreaction was ordered by F.D.R., America’s most liberal leader.

Today, 33 million Americans, ten percent of our population, live in poverty. While America’s safety nets help reduce the suffering, the suffering still exists in this land of such great wealth and generosity. This does not seem fair and its victims do not seem very free.

Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population for a total of 40 million people. One out of four black Americans is considered poor. That means 10 million people or one out of every three Americans living in poverty is black. Poverty is the leading cause of crime and violence.

While several people each year die unnecessarily in police hands, with even one being too many, each year almost 7,000 murder victims in America are black as are - 93% of their assailants.

America, while great, is not perfect. We are not perfect. The world is not perfect. Life is not perfect.

But I don’t think that the right response is to show disrespect, to withdraw one’s allegiance because work needs be done. I don’t think that protest marches and demonstrations sure to bring out the violent fringe are the answer. I don’t think that blocking streets or bridges is acceptable. This athlete did not open our eyes to a flaw in America that we were not painfully aware of. We have been hearing about it for years - again and again.

So what would work? What could these well paid professional athletes do to make a difference - to make lives better for Americans and to make America a better country for it?

They can do what our billionaires are doing - they can promise to give most of their overly generous earnings to organizations that can help ameliorate social problems causing and caused by poverty. They could donate tens of millions to their city’s or state’s schools to pay teachers more, build more schools and have smaller class sizes so teachers can know their students and their needs. They could donate millions to help released prisoners in their state to find their way back to the mainstream avoiding future crime and violence. They could donate money for drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers and mental health facilities.

It’s easy to charge the field with hands up (before finding out that there were actually no hands up during the referenced police encounter) or to sit down during the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance. It takes more character to sacrifice ourselves to help ease the suffering. Surely, this quarterback could afford to pledge $10 million a year to help relieve the causes of suffering in his community and he can urge all his fellow athletes to also make a pledge of financial support.

And instead of staging protest marches that lead to violence, looting and destruction, groups that want lives to matter can do their share by going into the most dangerous parts of their communities and standing as a peace barrier between rival gangs and factions in order to end the bloodshed. They can go to schools and tell students to stay in school, study hard and not use drugs or alcohol. They could caution girls about the risks involved in a certain intimate romantic activity that leads to unintentional parenthood.

We all can work hard to make America a better place for all of its citizens. We can stand up and pledge our undying allegiance to our beloved, though still imperfect, homeland.
     

How to Reduce Cancer and Heart Related Deaths, Save the Tobacco Industry, Destroy Drug Cartels, Raise Tax Revenure and Make People Happier

I have a simple plan that will do all of the above as well as free up law enforcement and shrink prison populations, reduce the incidence of Alzheimer’s, cut  America’s dependence on alcohol as well as its incidence of the resultant liver and kidney problems.

Let us do what Walter Cronkite, Rick Steves, Congressman/Dr. Ron Paul, state legislator Tom Ammiano, Senator Bernie Sanders, the presidents of the Organization of American States, and the majority of  Americans have told us we should do.

Legalize marijuana.

The way it is now, our economy depends in part on the viability of our tobacco industry. The industry includes 10,000 farms, thousands of farm related workers with factories producing 264 billion cigarettes for sale in our country and abroad each year. Cigarettes, unfortunately, cause cancer, emphysema, premature aging, and aggravate a number of other health-related problems like heart disease and stroke. We can’t keep producing health hazards and yet we can’t close down an entire industry. How can they continue to operate and make profit while producing something much less harmful? For many it may actually be therapeutic.

Legalize marijuana and have the tobacco industry convert to the marijuana industry. The companies would be licensed under strict guidelines ensuring the highest quality product in as pure a form as possible. This product would yield profits for the companies and employment for the workers as well as taxes for the government, potentially far exceeding revenues from tobacco taxes which are eaten up by resultant health care costs and lawsuits. 

Without the production of cigarettes, people currently addicted would have to finally quit. Many currently suffering the pains of illnesses will get some relief by smoking marijuana. People using alcohol to transcend their unfortunate circumstances only to be more depressed by them can turn to marijuana which has very few health risks associated with moderate use. Marijuana is now being used to fight the opioid addiction that is affecting people of all walks of life.

Marijuana will help the old as well as the young. The older citizens will not only get relief from their pains and improve their appetite, but they will have a different dimension in which to dwell when not busy with daily activities. They will enjoy the intrinsic joys of life and not miss some of the practical limitations of their advanced years. Elders who have been smoking this precious herb for years will have much less of a chance of developing Alzheimer’s, according to recent findings.

Law enforcement officers on the federal, state and local levels now spending their time finding marijuana farms and arresting distributors, sales representatives and consumers would be freed up to pursue serious criminals. Prison populations would be reduced if marijuana-related arrests, which target low income minority members disproportionately, ended. Alcohol-related crimes might also decrease with more people choosing marijuana as their new drug of choice.

With marijuana legal, drug dealers here and south of the border would go bankrupt.  Without riches from illegal marijuana sales, the drug cartels will have less power to control their communities and tempt others into lives of crime.

If you think that the abundant list of reasons for legalizing marijuana cited above is all-inclusive, I would urge you to think again. There is a much more important reason than all of the above combined - it will change our culture for the better.

As I have already mentioned in previous columns, we Americans have gotten too busy. We are constantly rushing, talking on our cell phones, playing phone tag with friends who are as busy as we are and are unable to connect. We have been fooled into believing that more is better and that there can never be enough. There is a saying “you can’t be too rich or too thin.” Of course you can and you can be too busy too.

Recent studies have found that people who partake for a period of time lose some of their extrinsic motivation. They are less dependent on money, status, power or prized possessions as sources of happiness. They become more intrinsically motivated.

We need to stop rushing around and learn to fully appreciate the paradise that surrounds us. We don’t have to constantly be trying to prove ourselves. According to informed sources, marijuana is the greatest teacher of living life in the moment and enjoying what you are doing, no matter whether it’s called “work” or “play.”

With marijuana you don’t need a big Hummer or pickup truck to feel like a man. With marijuana you don’t need four-inch spike heels and a pushup bra to prove that you are a woman. You don’t need wealth or fame to be successful. With marijuana you realize that you are consciousness and are interconnected with everything and everyone else.  You’ve got a friend inside and outside you.

Or, at least, so I’ve been told.

So, in this November’s election, please do the right thing: vote “yes” on 64 to legalize marijuana in California!

My Picks for the Best Cars and Years for Cars

I have read several online authorities declaring certain cars the best in their category or for a certain period. I disagree with almost all of the picks. I have decided to make my list. I have made three lists actually.

One is a list of what I think were the best ever examples of cars which also happened to occur during the same year(s) - 1955/56 for American cars and 1967 for sports cars. A second lists my picks for the best cars from 1956 to 1979. The third identifies what I think are the most beautiful new cars currently for sale.

BEST EVER CARS

1955-56 American Passenger Cars

1955    Desoto
1955    Mercury
1956    Buick
1956    Chevrolet
1956    Cadillac
1956    Continental
1956    Studebaker
1956    Ford
1956    Packard
1956    Thunderbird

1967 Sports Cars

Corvette
Jaguar XKE
Lotus Elan
MGB
TR4A
Ferrari 275 GTS nart
Morgan plus 4
Cobra
Austin Healey 3000
Lamborghini 350/400 GT
VW Karmann Ghia

Exceptions are:
1963 Mercedes 300SL
1963 Mercedes 190SL
1965 Porsche SC

Favorite Cars by Type and Year
1956 - 1979

Year     Make         Model        Body

American Family   
1956     Buick         Roadmaster  conv.
1956    Cadillac       62                conv.
1956    Lincoln        Continental  hardtop
1979    Cadillac        Seville         4 door

Sports Car
1956     Ford            T-Bird        conv./hardtop
1960    Chevrolet     Corvette     rdstr.
1960     Jaguar         XK150       rdstr.
1963    Mercedes     300SL        rdstr.
1963    Mercedes     190SL        rdstr.
1965    Porsche        SC              conv.   
1967    Chevrolet     Corvette     rdstr.   
1967    Jaguar           XKE          rdstr.

Foreign Family
1960    Mercedes      220SE        conv.
1967    Volvo            122s           4 door
1971    Mercedes      280SE        conv.3.5   
1979    Mercedes      280 SE       4 door   
1979    Honda           Accord       4 door

Favorite Design of New Cars -
2015-16

Type                    Size in inches

Hatchbacks:       
Mini S four door     158
VW Golf                 168
Audi A3                  169
Lexus CT200h        171
Mazda 3                  176

SUVs:
Fiat 500X                 168
Audi Q3                  173
VW Tiguan              174
Mercedes GLK 350 178
 Acura RDX             184
Infiniti EX               187
VW Touareg            189

Wagons:
Jetta                        180
Audi A4                  185
Acura                      190

Luxury:
Acura ilx                  182                   
Audi A4                   186
VW CC                    189
Buick Regal             190
Tesla                         196
Porsche Panamerica 197
Buick Lacrosse         197
Mercedes S               198

Brexit and Nexits

The citizens of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union (EU). The reaction has been wild. The stock markets fell for two days. (It is now at record highs.) Some in the U.K. want a do-over. Scotland wants to leave the U.K. and keep its ties to the EU. Voters in Wales might decide to follow suit. The residents of Northern Ireland might want to leave to U.K. and join the rest of Ireland while staying with the EU.

If the nexits occur, England will once again be England. Scotland and Wales could still be part of Great Britain which would be like a little EU with free trade and movement between the three countries. I have always favored this idea.

But what other nexits could there be?

Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are said to be considering leaving the EU while maintaining free trade with the remaining countries.

Greece might also decide to quit the Union so that they could have their own currency and better control their failing economy.

In Spain, the Catalonians want to have their independence.

And Tibet still wants its independence from China.

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have already been disbanded, replaced by about nine independent nations and two autonomous provinces. The Soviet Union was disbanded giving their 14 countries back to the people of Eastern Europe. 

In the Middle East, it is beginning to appear that some of these nations whose boundaries were drawn by the Western powers after the fall of the Ottoman empire in the last century, will need to be split up. Iraq might become three countries: a Shiite, a Sunni and a Kurd, since the three groups do not seem willing or able to live together there. Syria and Yemen might also see a restructuring. Yemen became a united nation in 1991 and may need to be divided again. It seems that tribalism has even trumped nationalism in this region.

Here in America, we have been amazed to see the political success of a businessman and entertainer against 16 seasoned professionals. This success came regardless of the fact that this man has been called racist, xenophobic, sexist, dishonest,  narcissistic, a bully, a liar and in it just for himself.

What appealed to a record number of GOP primary voters was his position on illegal immigration, outsourcing American manufacturing jobs and U.S. trade agreements. He promised to seal the southern border to stop the constant flow of migrants who can walk into our country and if caught be able to stay at least for a few years before facing possible, though unlikely, repatriation. He promised to bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs while making our country self sufficient by producing the goods and services Americans want and need. He promised to reduce our trade deficits with other countries like China and Mexico. He pledged to get American companies to stop outsourcing jobs.

He would make America great by putting America first. He defied the current zeitgeist of globalization in favor of nationalism.  

Meanwhile, the globalists are in a state of panic. Their dream of one world order with no borders and no nationalities is fading.

Those who represent big business want to eliminate all barriers to expanded markets. Big business means global business that transcends nationalistic boundaries. They imagine a world with no tariffs, no passports, uniform laws and regulations, a common currency and even a common language, preferably English. They long to make business completely fluid with no barriers to block the flow.

Those on the left also favor globalization. For them it means equality for all people and cultures. Why should the 35 developed nations do so well while 160 second and third-world countries have so much trouble providing for their people? Aren’t all people created equal? Aren’t we all G-d’s children (if we believe in G-d)? Aren’t all cultures created equal?

The urge for globalization began more than 2500 years ago. The Persians wanted to spread their empire across the world. They were defeated and followed by the Greeks who under Alexander the Great wanted to Helenise the world. They were followed by the Romans, the Moguls, the Ottoman, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian and the Soviet empires.

All of these empires are gone now. The attempts at globalization were defeated by nationalism. People wanted their own country, culture, language, currency and sense of identity. They still do.

But what has caused this recent surge in nationalism? I think it was the fear of future immigration from the developing world. I think that Angela Merkel, a globalist, opened the floodgates of nationalism by welcoming immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. The moment she made her invitation, I knew that we were talking millions of people. I don’t think that she realized how many people would arrive in Europe to make their way to its most generous nations to refugees - Germany, England and Scandinavia, while not choosing to go to nearby countries that share their cultural values, tradition, beliefs and religion. Germany appealed to the EU to force member nations to accept some of these new entrants. Many EU countries resented and rejected this mandate and closed their borders.

While our own mainstream media will not report the problems associated with this mass migration from totally different cultures, the British probably got the news of necessitated changes in daily life in these affluent, civilized nations. Cultures were being threatened by greater numbers of peoples with vastly different values and beliefs - especially regarding the treatment of women. The millions of migrants also receive welfare benefits greater than those available to citizens taking money away from each country’s less fortunate to offer needed services to refugees.

And some fear that the migrant problem will only worsen with low birth rates and aging population in the developed nations and the prospect of huge population growth in the poorest nations like those in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa.

The globalists want to believe that all cultures, like all people, are created equal. The problem is that they are not. Just as people are born very different, though equally human, cultures are not even close to being equal while being dramatically different. Globalists are unwilling to see the relationship between a culture and its success socially, politically and economically. There is a reason people are fleeing their homelands in record numbers - their culture has failed them. But unaware of this relationship, those making a new home in the developed world want to bring their old culture with them.

I believe that the answer is not mass migration, is not changing successful cultural practices and policies nor is it imposing our culture on others in the form of empires or occupation. I think it is in the developed world’s best interest to provide the less developed world with tools to improve their living conditions and to modify their cultural beliefs and practices so that residents will want to live in their beloved homeland not needing to risk their lives breaking into other lands to survive.

I can imagine a prosperous Latin America with honest and wise politicians and a happy, hard working population and reduced birth rates reflecting a greater respect for women. I can wish for the same in the Middle East and Africa. I can dream of a world with people who love their homeland and have no thoughts of ever living anywhere else.

Surely, every human deserves no less.






 

Parking Problems in Paradise

San Francisco is a peninsula paradise of 49 square miles filled with hills and valleys creating stunning views. And while it is a very public transit first, progressive city with an excellent public transportation system including Muni and BART, there are 1.5 million daytime visitors and residents; some of them will drive and be in need of parking during the daytime hours.

Some of the city’s parking is metered and can cost as much as $6 an hour to park a car in busy commercial and tourist areas. Monthly rents for garage spaces can be at least $300 and are still hard to find. Residential areas have special residential parking permits that allow residents to park all day in non-metered spaces. Visitors to these neighborhoods are restricted to two-hour parking from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays. 

Then there are the temporary, “No Stopping” signs that restrict parking either for construction or for residential moving. Those posted for construction projects are controlled by the Department of Public Works (DPW). Those posted for residential, usually apartment, moves are issued by the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA). It is with these two agencies and their issuances that I have a big problem and have done everything I can think of to let their leaders know.

DPW issues these restricting permits to contractors who are either doing work for the city (DPW contracts out most of the work it used to do for our infrastructure as does Recreation and Parks) or for home owners and developers. The city issues the permits the contractors request for up to six months at a time. The permits usually restrict parking from 7 a.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The problem is that San Francisco contractors and their construction workers almost never work past 3:30 or 4 p.m. and very rarely work on Saturdays. But the many posted spaces are unavailable to anyone else during these covered periods. If the project ends sooner than the expiration date of the permit, the contractors have no motivation to take the signs down, meaning people will be unable to use the precious spaces for weeks while no one is using them for their restricted purpose.

I have recommended that these permits be issued to end at 4 p.m. and not include Saturdays unless the contractor is willing to pay a large premium and contracts to work Saturdays. If the rare case occurs and a crew actually works past 4 p.m., their vehicles will secure their space. If they leave at 3:30 or 4, as is usually the case, residents and visitors can make use of the parking.

I have a different issue with MTA permits issued. Their pricing structure was apparently designed to make it easy for accounts receivable. “No Stopping” signs for apartment moves cost $180 a day whether the signs restrict parking for 40 feet or 180. So if someone realizes he needs only 40 feet but must pay as much as he would if he needed more than four times as much has two possible alternate reactions: either that he should not get the signs and therefore will take his chances double parking for the two hours it takes to get his stuff into or out of the truck or he’ll go for the full bore - 180 feet, which is about six or seven parking spaces. And even though the mover knows it will take two to four hours and they will be between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., he can request that the parking restriction last 12 hours a day for the same price.

I recommend the obvious. Charge a higher rate for additional space so that getting 40 feet will cost less than a fourth as much as would 180 feet and that the latter should be discouraged without great justification such as that the move will use two large moving vans with loading ramps. Also the permits should end at 4 p.m. since they rarely go later and if they do, the trucks will occupy the space until the work is completed. If they leave at or before that time, others will be able to use these spaces.

It would also be nice if contractors and movers removed the “No Stopping” signs the minute they are no longer needed. I have been saddened to find that most don’t. A nice neighbor left their five signs up for six weeks after all the work on their home had been completed and refused requests by neighbors and DPW to take them down. They paid for them so they felt justified.

I recommended that DPW and MTA refund the prorated cost of the unused time.   

Being at ground zero for construction projects and apartment moves, I can see as many as 25 “No Stopping” signs in my one block area. We now have one construction project that has been going on for more than 16 years, another in its fifth year and one going into its second year. People in the area want to add a garage or redo the interior of their home. One project took only 18 months and involved tearing down a small building and building a four unit condo. The four units sold for more than $11 million, netting the contractor more than $8 million. A few blocks away workers are building condos using a former dental school building. The apartments will cost from $3000 to $4000 a square foot. So construction work is a big and lucrative business but it must also be responsible and it the city’s job to make sure they are.

So I have written to the heads of the MTA and DPW. So far I have seen few changes. Perhaps by making more people aware of the problem, some will join in the effort to have more parking available with fewer spaces going to waste.

As I wrote in a previous column titled “Private and Public Ownership,” residents need to take responsibility for their public spaces as well as those they privately own. The streets and sidewalks are our public property. If you see “No Stopping” signs left up after they are no longer needed, you can call the contractors listed on the signs and ask them if their work is done. If it is, the signs should come down. You can also call 311 in San Francisco and ask that the signs be removed.  

Let’s work to end or at least reduce our parking problems in paradise.

Protesting Madness

There are two meanings of the word “mad.” It could mean crazy or it could mean angry. It seems that we are going through both variations.

We can understand why people are mad in the Middle East and North Africa. We have seen the people in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Gaza and Egypt again rise up and riot in the streets. People screaming, cursing, shouting - mad. These people have been oppressed by their rulers for decades and have finally had enough. The problem in most of these cases is that there are so many rival factions and they are all mad. A cartoon picture that offends them will cause riots with many injured and killed. If a holy book is damaged this too will cause vicious riots. These people are mad. The region has groups like Al Qaeda, Taliban, Houthi, Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS (or ISIL or IS or soon ISN’T) terrorizing the people and wanting a world where women are completely subjugated, treated worse than dogs which they are not allowed to have because the dogs are deemed too unclean.

In sub Sahara Africa, populations are terrorized by groups like Boko Harem and Al-Shabaab, groups that no doubt look up to their fellow monsters to the north. The people are faced with poverty, violence, corruption and disease. It’s enough to drive a people mad.

We see it in the former communist countries where corruption is rampant and freedom is limited. We can understand what would drive these people mad as they are in the Ukraine and soon will be elsewhere in Eastern Europe as the former/ future Evil Empire tries to gain a foothold in the world. Some experts on the region that was, for a terrible while, known as the USSR, say that the only thing that keeps these people unified at all is the massive corruption. No wonder the people are mad and are going mad as well.

We see the tremendous poverty, corruption and violence in Latin America from Mexico to Haiti to Colombia and Argentina. We can understand why many of their people are mad. This region suffers a 29% poverty rate with 165 million people living on less than $1,000 a year. The people suffer at the hands of violent drug dealers and corrupt police officers. Non-whites, though in the majority, and women are treated like second or third class citizens.

But why are Americans mad? We see the signs everywhere.

After a playoff football game, the defensive player who was able to block a pass that could have won the game, was interviewed. He had been able to go to one of the best colleges in the country on a football scholarship. He was earning millions of dollars a year, and had just saved his team’s victory. He was furious. He was yelling and cursing and looking like a very angry and crazy man. Why was he so mad?

A young high school dropout and a hero wannabe, got a federal job under false premises, broke contractual agreements and vows of confidentiality to expose a government program that he felt might be wrong. His leaks had the potential of damaging national security. But instead of being universally vilified as a narcissistic traitor, some took up his cause claiming that their privacy had been somehow violated. Some were mad at the government that was trying to protect them from terrorist threats and took the traitor’s side. Are they crazy or just mad?

A young high school football player is asked about his presence in a gated and secured housing complex. He reacts violently and tries to kill the community volunteer asking the question. The volunteer kills his violent assailant in self defense. We want justice for the dead assailant. Even after a jury including six mothers found the shooter innocent and after the U.S. Attorney General reviewed every aspect of the case hoping for a federal conviction also ruled the killing self defense, we want the volunteer to suffer, forever. We are mad as hell. Are we mad?

An old, senile, rich and jealous man is taped in the privacy of his home saying bad things about a group of his girlfriend’s friends. We are offended, not that his privacy actually was violated, but that he could have said anything bad about any group of people. We wanted him banned from the team that he owned and forced him to sell it. He got us mad.

This madness has spread to show solidarity for an oppressed people and all oppressed people. Protect the underdog against the mean top dogs of the world symbolized by the police. Riot and display disobedience and lawlessness to show compassion for the underprivileged.

But now we have a left wing politician with presidential hopes coming out against the mean top 1%. He is upset that people in the top 1% have a lot more money and assets than do other 99% of the population. He believes that if one person owns five homes and 10 cars while another rents an apartment and takes public transportation, that the latter is a victim of the former and should be entitled to have almost as much capital.

What he fails to see is that capital does not make people happy in proportion to its size. A billionaire is not any more likely to be happy than is a person who make $80,000 a year and owns no capital asset like a home or business enterprise. Has he gone mad or is just mad that he does not own more?

We are now seeing madness on our college campuses. Students are protesting and demanding that professors and administrators be fired for not doing more to protect the delicate sensibilities of their minority students. Did some students wear the wrong Halloween costumes? Did a professor write an email that did not show enough empathy for the offended underdogs? Did the former president of the university and past liberal President of the United States have the wrong idea about a certain group of people more than 100 years ago? His name should be removed from wherever it is on campus. Did an invited speaker say anything that could offend any interest group? He should be booed if he is allowed to speak at all. Have our college campuses become centers for mob madness instead of havens for higher learning?

And what should we do about all this madness?

As the Jefferson Airplane advised Alice in “White Rabbit,” “keep your head!” and use it.   

The Revolt of the American Underdogs - The Working Class and Poor

The twin political surprises of the year have been the success of businessman and entertainer, Donald Trump against 16 professional politicians and of Bernie Sanders, a socialist Independent against the person already chosen to represent her party and our country. How could these two people seemingly on opposite ends of the political spectrum, be doing so well against impossible odds? What could they possibly have in common?

The revolt of the American underdogs - working class and the poor.

The working class is also known as the blue collar or the lower-middle class. They, along with the poor or lower class, make up the bottom half of U.S. household income earners. Most do not earn enough to pay any federal income tax with tens of millions of them getting federal transfer benefits like the Earned Income Credit, food stamps and Medicaid. Most have no more than a high school diploma.

These two presidential hopefuls have several things in common that appeal to both of these groups of Americans.

Both Bernie and Trump seem genuine. They seem to be saying what they think and showing how they feel. Most professional politicians are too well conditioned to say what they really feel or think for fear of alienating part of their constituency. It seems that Bernie and Donald talk like working class people do. They are not inhibited by attempts at being politically correct, something that regular folk can’t stand already. But that means that they might say something that might offend some defensive group.

Neither has  been using a super-PAC or depending on corporate donations. (Trump might begin having a super PAC.)

Both are against illegal immigration while only Trump has promised to try to end it. Bernie, like past farm labor leader Cesar Chavez, believes that illegal immigration hurts the working class and the poor, while Americans with college education and good paying careers have no problem with illegal immigration. Undocumented workers provide services that the middle class needs and enjoys including housecleaning, child care, gardening, food service, construction, farming, and furniture moving at very reasonable rates. Those here uninvited will not be competition for any white collar job. They will not be competing to be partners in a law firm or for residency in a hospital. They will not be teachers or politicians, nurses or social workers. So what is their problem with people coming to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their loved ones?

But if you are a person without a college education, you might be competing with people here illegally who would be willing to work for less.

Both Bernie and the Donald are against many of our foreign trade treaties like NAFTA and the current one, the Trans Pacific Trade Pact. Both are against outsourcing American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and Far East countries like China and Vietnam. People in the working class are directly affected by these job losses while those in the middle and upper classes enjoy lower costs and a greater variety of offerings from this globalization.

But the irony is that minority voters who are most likely to be in the bottom two socio-economic classes (lower and lower middle) and are therefore most impacted by these two major policy issues, prefer Hillary to both candidates.

Blacks and Latino Americans are disproportionately less educated and more in need of entry level jobs from which they can promote. Hillary claims to be for open borders; has promised people living here illegally that she would let them stay so as not to break up families and that she would expedite their path to citizenship. These moves would only bring more people here without invitation making the lives of those in our lowest two socio-economic classes even worse.

While we suffered high unemployment rates during our recent recession, the groups impacted most severely were those without college educations and especially those who did not complete high school. While the U.S. population as a whole reached a high of 10% unemployment, black and Latino youth were seeing rates as high as 30%. It is these groups who must compete with foreign workers abroad as well as illegal immigrants at home.

If Bernie and the Donald can make this point clear, they could win over more minority voters and defeat Hillary who would offer more transfer payments instead of jobs for these impacted American workers and needy poor.

Both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump were against our invasion of Iraq and our involvement in the overthrow of several Middle East dictators. Both are against our nation’s past efforts at nation building. The two also agree that we are spending too much defending our allies, especially in NATO. Trump says that we are being taken advantage of in NATO with the U.S.paying the lion’s share. The NATO defenders say that America is paying in proportion to its GNP and so pays more than any other country or 22% of all related costs. The problem is we are paying to defend our allies, not the U.S. Both candidates seem to feel that the host countries should pay for their own defense. Hillary seems content to let us have more than 700 military bases on foreign lands protecting only the host countries and their friendly neighbors.

This also affects people in the working and poor classes. They are most likely to be the ones fighting for our country to protect another. They were in Iraq protecting Iraqis from Iraqis. They were in Afghanistan protecting Afghans from the Taliban. They are now in Syria, Iraq and Libya protecting the innocent from the violent terrorist groups that seem to be metastasizing across the region.  

Both candidates have said that the hundreds of billions we are squandering abroad being the world’s 911 could be better spent on our infrastructure - physical and intellectual. We could be fixing our highways, bridges, schools, and healthcare centers. Most Americans won’t be involved in armed conflicts, mainly just people who have few other opportunities. As Shakespeare’s Falstaff said, “the poor die as well as the rich.”

Some Democrats are saying that Bernie Sanders is not really a Democrat. He isn’t. He’s an Independent and a socialist. But Democratic and Independent voters, especially the young and the socio-economic underdogs, love him.

Some GOP leaders say the Trump is not a real conservative or even a real Republican. That is probably also true. But maybe the voters are tired of the traditional political alternatives  They want someone different.

I think that we are in for a very interesting six months. Keep your eyes on the underdogs - the working class and poor in revolt.