Whatever Happened to the American Family Car?

Most of us are either too young or too old to remember what American cars were like in the 1920s and 1930s. Unless we watch classic car auctions, we are unaware that America produced some of the greatest family cars, especially luxury ones.  In the 1920s and 1930s America produced luxury cars like the Duesenberg, Pierce Arrow, Packard, Auburn, Cadillac and Lincoln.  These cars could compete with Europe’s Rolls Royce, Bentley, Mercedes and Jaguar in beauty, power and luxury. 

Many of us are too young or old to remember American family cars of the 1950s and 1960s.  After going through the 1940s with a non-productive period caused by bad design and the war, American cars started a comeback in the early 1950s. 

For me it really began again in 1953 with the Buick Skylark convertible and the Cadillac 62, which also came in a convertible. The following years saw the birth of America’s sports cars - the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird and then the boom of 1956, one of the best years ever for American cars.  The 1956 Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac were perhaps the best they have ever been. Chrysler had the Imperial and the 300 that began the year before.  Even the Mercury had its best year ever as far as design and popularity. And the Lincoln Continental was every bit as exquisite as the finest foreign make.  Cadillac had its super luxurious Eldorado Brougham which just got better in 1957 and 1958.

During these years, people would go to the dealers in August or September to see the new models.  Each year each model changed slightly, not always for the better.  By 1959 cars had become too big and unattractive.  The huge fins destroyed the graceful lines of 1956.

Around 1962 America decided to make smaller family cars. There was the Chevrolet Corvair, the Pontiac Tempest, the Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass, the Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Dart, Mercury Comet and Ford Falcon.  They were smaller but well equipped.  They were challenged by foreign cars like the Volkswagen, Volvo and Saab, which were smaller and used less gas in their less powerful engines.  Each year these American small cars grew a little larger.   By the mid 1960s many of them became muscle cars.  The Olds Cutlass evolving into the mighty 442, the Pontiac Tempest grew up to become the Lemans and then the awesome GTO, even the Skylark got a big engine.

For the second half of the 1960s, America fell in love with the big, powerful American family car.  Chrysler Corporation came out with the Plymouth Barracuda and Roadrunner, the Dodge Challenger and an even bigger 300 series.  The two sport cars had grown considerably with the T-Bird becoming a large four passenger car even available in a four door model. The Corvair had been killed by Ralph Nader who claimed that it was unsafe at any speed. The Studebaker and the Packard went the way of the Duesenberg and Pierce Arrow, which disappeared in the 1940s. American Motors, which produced the Rambler and the Metropolitan was also on its last legs. By 1969, American cars were neither attractive nor reliable.

The 1970s saw the American family car fall further from grace.  The foreign invasion not only from Germany and Sweden but also from Japan began threatening our car production.  By 1979, the only American family car that we could be proud of was the Cadillac which produced the 1979 Seville and the end of the Fleetwood line. Americans were turning to Honda, Toyota, Datsun which became Nissan and to VW and Volvo.  These cars were more attractive, more reliable and much more fun to drive.

By the beginning of the 1980s American family car was on life support. It appears that at that point American car executives made some terrible decisions.  First they decided to reduce the amount of chrome on their cars in part because of its country of source, Rhodesia.  American government officials did not want to trade with what was considered a racist state. Also chrome was heavy and expensive and Americans were beginning to show concern for gas economy.  The second mistake that has continued to this date, was to follow the lead of the 1975 Triumph TR7 which billed itself as the shape of the future.  The new shape was almost triangular with the front of the car much lower than the back. The ad for it was the car driving into a triangular shaped garage.  While the TR7 probably was the worst and last Triumph ever made, the new shape seemed to be the way to go reducing drag and increasing fuel efficiency.  The third mistake and one that has also continued into the present was to start building trucks with closed cabs and calling them SUVs.  The idea was that the car companies could produce them cheaply but sell them for a lot figuring that we were dumb enough to fall for it.  They were right.  We were dumb enough to pay big bucks for the Escalade, Navigator, Durango, GMC,  Explorer, Tahoe, Equinox et al even though they were basically pick up trucks.  They were also attractive to some because they did not use the wedge shape so looked more like cars used to look.

For all these reasons, the American car companies stopped producing attractive sedans, coupes, hardtops, fastbacks, convertibles or station wagons.  The American luxury sedan or hardtop was nowhere to be found.  The Japanese and Europeans rushed in to fill the void. 

Honda, Toyota and Nissan came out with their own luxury lines: the Acura, Lexus and Infinity, respectively.  Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Audi and even VW came out with affordable luxury cars.

At this time, the end of 2012, America has no desirable luxury cars, does not produce practical station wagons, makes few if any convertibles,  has few if any good hatchbacks and can not compete in the small car arena.  America now produces mainly pick up trucks, SUVs and large family cars that few Americans want.

Have you seen the Cadillac or the Lincoln models lately?  What are they?  They are not luxurious or attractive.  Who would buy them other than drug dealers, pimps and second string professional athletes? This was Tony Soprano's choice and he could have had any car.

What can the American car industry do?

First, we must admit that we have only six actual car lines.  The Dodge line should be a truck line for Chrysler corporation as is GMC for General Motors. Then each line should come up with as many as three size models: one that is about 165 inches - plus or minus a few - and includes a hatchback; another that is 175 inches - plus or minus a few - and includes a station wagon and a convertible and a third that is about 185 inches in length.

General Motors should bring their 1956 Chevrolet and Cadillac to their designers and say make a modern version of these and use chrome and never mind the wedge look.  For the small model, they could also be shown a 2006 VW Golf hatchback for inspiration.  The G.M. car models should have names and not numbers.  There could be the Chevrolet Corsa, Bel Air and Impala.  The Cadillac would have the Fleetwood, the Seville and maybe the Eldorado.  Attention should be paid to the proportion of window size to body and that of tire size to body.  This was not a problem in the 1950s, but is one now as in the new Camaro with windows too small for the body.

At Chrysler while developing a new larger Fiat for their small model, they could produce a medium sized car also with a station wagon and convertible and a large, luxurious Imperial like those of the 1950‘s and early 1960s.

Ford should produce three models of the Ford and two of the luxury Lincoln with a midsize model and a most luxurious Continental to top its line.  Lincoln designers can be shown the 1956 Continental and one produced in 1964 that also came as a four-door convertible with suicide doors for direction. Lincoln has been such a mistreated neglected line, almost as bad as was Mercury.  The new model is doomed to failure.  I would tell Lincoln designers what I did GM, forget the wedge look.  Porsche did not go wedge.  Neither did Rolls or Bentley. Triumph no longer exists because it introduced the wedge.  Don't go the way of the Triumph that true to its name, produced great cars like the TR2, TR3, TR4a with irs even the TR250 only to end because the dread wedge.  Forget the wedge!!!

There is no reason why America can not produce beautiful, economical, well sized,  high quality, desirable American cars that Americans and foreigners will want to buy.  We’ve done it before, we can do it again.

Why He Lost

Presidential political pundits predictions of a razor thin election for president proved terribly wrong.  Speculation of what might happen if there were a tie was idle at best.  The election ended up with the President getting more than 62% of the electoral votes winning all but one  of the “battleground” states.  Perhaps compared with re-election wins by LBJ or Ronald Reagan, it seemed razor thin.

Now there are questions as to why the President’s opponent did so poorly.  The losing candidate blamed the President’s largesse, giving gifts to certain voting groups like men, women and children. The losing party’s propaganda channel blamed the loss on the fact that America has suddenly changed demographically making it a different country from the one we knew and loved just four years ago.  Another group blamed Hurricane Sandy for the challenger’s bitter defeat.

So why did the Republican candidate for President lose his bid amid such difficult economic times?

I think that I know why.

Early on it was clear that anyone wanting the Republican nomination would have to please the extreme right wing of the party.  Members of that wing are against abortion for any reason, gay rights, the Affordable Care Act (also known as Romneycare), higher income taxes, government oversight of private industries and illegal immigration.  The successful nominee would also have to appeal to Independents, who tend to be much more moderate in their views.  Many Independents favor gay rights, abortion, higher income taxes for the rich and corporations, and they want some solution to the illegal immigration problem that does not involve mass deportation.

The person finally selected to represent the Republican party after a brutal primary process against an almost laughable array of competitors, tried to walk the fine line to satisfy both the extreme members and Independents who tended to be much less radical.

The only issue the Republicans had against the incumbent was that he had not fixed the economy that was almost fatally crippled by the previous administration.  The challenge was to present an alternative to the President’s “failed” economic policies.  The challenge turned out to be too overwhelming.

One possible way of improving the economy would be through taxes while another would be by reducing the cost of government by cutting programs that add to our deficit and therefore retard our economy’s recovery. 

The Republican candidate’s solution was to lower taxes on the rich, totally eliminating the capital gains tax meaning that he himself would pay no taxes.  He also wanted to increase military spending to a higher percent of the GDP regardless of need.  These two ideas would have added $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, exactly the opposite of the stated goal.  The theory was that this would create jobs because the rich would not send all their money to Swiss banks and offshore island accounts.  The top two percent of income families have been named “the job creators” disregarding the fact that the other 98% create jobs by consuming products and services.  You can’t get rich without customers.

The challenger then promised to make up for the cuts by closing tax loopholes and deductions.  When accused of shifting the tax burden to the middle class, he promised not to raise their taxes and that the rich would continue to pay the same share as they do now and that his tax reform would be revenue neutral.  So he ended up saying that he would cut taxes but not to the rich or middle class and the changes would have no effect on the deficit.

(All along he refused to show his tax returns going back at least 10 years for fear that they would be used against him.  The two recent years he did reveal showed that he paid less than 14% of his annual income in taxes.  He had been betting against America by investing his vast wealth in Swiss bank accounts and offshore tax shelters.  He was the poster boy for tax inequity provided by tax loopholes large enough to fly a tax deductible Lear jet through.)

That left cutting the cost of government.  With one half of the general fund budget going to defense (keeping Social Security and medicare costs and revenues should separate from the general fund budget, as they should be) and only $750 billion in other government costs to work with, cutting defense spending would be on top of the list.  But, remember, he wanted to actually increase this spending.   If he had cut out the rest of the government, he would save just enough to pay for his original tax plan, leaving us with a continued $1 trillion annual deficit.   

The candidate promised to cut government programs but would not say which because he feared that if he did, the voters would reject him.  The exception was Public Broadcasting and therefore, Sesame Street.  That cut would save a few hundred million in a $2 trillion general fund budget.

He chose a running mate who has made a career out of attempting to rob from the poor to give to the rich.  His plan for Social Security was to privatize it just as people like him and his running mate already do.  Neither will be eligible for Social Security payments but neither needs them.

His running mate’s solution to future Medicare financing issues was to abandon Medicare and replace it with a voucher system which would help seniors and the disabled afford a part of their private health insurance payment.  He would save Medicare by destroying it.

When the Republican team realized that talking about the economy was not sufficient, they decided to show their challenger’s foreign policy credentials by taking a trip abroad.  He was to visit London before and during the Olympics, then push on to Poland and Israel.  In London he offended the British by saying that he feared that their security provisions might be insufficient to ensure the safety of athletes and spectators.  They almost booed him out of the country.

He went to Israel where he offended Arabs and their sympathizers by crediting Israel’s great success to its cultural superiority to the former residents, the Palestinians.

In Poland while visiting the tomb of their unknown soldier, his press secretary shouted four letter expletives at a reporter for asking the candidate a difficult question because, he said, “this G-- d---- f------ place is sacred for C----’s sake!!!”

The trip proved that the candidate had no foreign policy credentials.  In a vote of people in Europe and Asia, the Republican ticket did not even reach double digits in their percentage of vote.

Then there were the gaffs, slips of the tongue that threatened to reveal the real him. 

He told a crowd that corporations were people.  He told Michigan residents that one of their best features was that their trees were all the right height.  He bet an opponent $10,000 that he was wrong.  He told a story in one town how funny it was that his father presided over the their annual parade and then closed its American Motors plant and laid off all the workers.  He also told a crowd that he loved firing people which didn’t sit well with those who had lost their jobs.  He told another gathering that he too was unemployed with the only difference being that he still made $21 million a year more than most in the audience could earn working for several lifetimes.

But these gaffs were dwarfed by his biggest one. He told a small group at a fundraiser that 47% of the American people pay no income tax and were hopeless.  He could never change them and they would never stop seeing themselves as victims, unable to take of themselves and in constant need of government’s help.  He later said that he was wrong. He never made clear what he felt he was wrong about.  It seems that he felt that he was wrong for saying what he really believed, a rare occurrence for him.

While campaigning in Ohio and Michigan he attempted to rewrite recent history.  After having strongly advocated against bailing out G.M. and Chrysler in early 2009 and advising that they go into bankruptcy even though credit markets were frozen solid and more than one million jobs would be lost at the height of our recession, he tried to say that he saved those companies.  Then he tried to say that there was a secret deal to ship Jeep manufacturing abroad and eliminating jobs in Ohio.  The story was a total lie but did upset the affected workers who were reassured by company executives that the outsourcing story was totally false.

Ironically, when this candidate was in private equity for 25 years, he was an advocate of outsourcing as a means of increasing corporate profit.

To counter charges by seniors that his running mate’s budget plan would eliminate Medicare, the presidential contender tried to claim that it was the President who was cutting Medicare by eliminating $700 million in unnecessary hospital and insurance company fees.  It was revealed that this cut did not affect recipients and was also in his running mate’s rejected budget proposal, one that the presidential contender supported.

The Republican team then tried to convince voters that the President was undoing the job requirement for welfare recipients because he had allowed two states some leeway as long as the result was getting more recipients back to work.  The requests had been made by two conservative Republican governors.

Should we still wonder why the Republican ticket was soundly defeated in November?  Shouldn’t we be wondering how the Republican ticket even got 38% of the electoral votes.  The answer to that is certain states in the Midwest and South will almost always vote for the Republican ticket, no matter how bad it is. At least they are consistent.

But can’t we say that the Republican team ran a good campaign and that both men on that ticket were decent, honorable men?

No. 

Coming Home

Those who watch the evening news see reports of terrible violence in some part of the Muslim world - from the west coast of Africa north to Tunisia and east to Pakistan what seems like every night on the news.  The violence is directed at members of rival sects and tribes; it is against women and it is against the United States and Israel. There are huge angry mobs - yelling, screaming obscenities, burning flags, shaking fists and making horrible faces in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, the Palestine, Yemen, etc.  While we are constantly reminded that this is just an extremist minority not reflective of the population, we see so much of it.

Many of these angry mobs are in countries to whom the U.S. provides essential aid.  We give billions a year to the Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya.  When the Libyans were revolting against their longtime dictator, they begged for and received American military and humanitarian aid.  The Egyptians also requested and received our support against their longtime dictator.  Now the Syrians plead and insist that we come to their aid.

We have been in Afghanistan with bases throughout the country for more than a decade, longer than any other American conflict.  We entered to rid the country of Al Qaeda and to drive the Taliban from power.  We did that early on, Al Qaeda was defeated and their Taliban hosts surrendered.  Instead of imprisoning or executing these terrorists, we let them go with their weapons, to fight another day.  We then began nation building and training what we have always been told were brave, patriotic warriors willing to fight to their death for the good of their people. We have been nation building and training for many years but can not locate these brave warriors.  And while the people want us out they don’t want to run their own country without us.

In addition to the Middle East and Africa, we have hundreds of military bases all over the world.  We are in South Korea with 25,000 troops to hold the line against North Korea’s one million man force.  We have bases in England, France, Italy and Germany.  We have bases in Japan and Latin America.

The total requested for 2012-13 for defense was not just the $708 billion going to the Department of Defense budget, but also included the following purely defense- related costs: the V.A. - $70 billion, Veteran’s pensions - $55 billion, Homeland security - $47 billion,  Department of Energy - $22 billion, State Department - $6 billion, FBI - $3 billion, Miscellaneous related costs - $8 billion and interest of military loans that paid for Iraq and Afghanistan - at least $109 billion.  The total U.S. defense cost is at minimum $1.03 trillion. 

The entire general fund budget for the U.S. (without Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security costs of $1.5 trillion which are still totally paid for with FICA trust funds and should not be in the general fund budget) is, therefore, not $3.5 trillion but about $2 trillion.  Of that our defense costs are more than 50% of the actual general fund budget.  (Interestingly, the cost of military purchases and research was $215 billion in 2011while military personnel costs were only $154 billion.)

We are providing military and economic assistance to countries all over the world, spending tens of billions of dollars a year that could be spent right here in our country.  We have more than 700 foreign bases and give more than $50 billion in foreign aid.  What do they accomplish?  Do the recipients of our aid and protection appreciate us or do they feel that we are controlling them and their culture? Do they become independent of our largesse as quickly as possible or do they expect it to continue indefinitely? 

Meanwhile, back here in the States, we need to reduce our annual budget shortfall while we need to improve our physical and intellectual infrastructure.  We need better roads and bridges to facilitate both commerce and recreation.  We need a much better education system to give all of our children a complete, well rounded education.  We need to bring our own people out of poverty and into productive rewarding lives by providing them with opportunity and motivation.

All this costs money.  Money we could save by bringing our troops and aid payments home to rebuild our own country.

But what will the world do if we withdraw our military and reduce our foreign aid?  I am confident that they will find that they can manage quite well and feel much better for it.  The Muslim world has been insisting that we leave their soil.  We have left Saudi Arabia and Iraq, let us quickly leave Afghanistan and the region.  Let us leave Asia and Europe and come home.

If there is a struggle in the Middle East (unless it involves Israel), there is the Arab League to turn to.  In Africa, they too have an organization of their many states to accomplish mutual goals.  If there is a civil war somewhere else in the world, let the U.N. deal with it.  Now that Europe is somewhat unified, why not let them have their own defense league?  If our allies still feel a need for some of our bases, let them pay the entire cost.

And let American dollars circulate in America.  Let us be a country that is no longer dependent on oil from the Middle East and is much less dependent on foreign made goods and services, exporting much more than we import. We can be a nation that leads by example and not by money and military power.

Bringing our money and people home would help produce a better educated, less stratified, and more creative and productive people who experience less violence and more harmony.  We can do it.

If we just come home.   

Are We As Dumb As They Think We Are?

We are now at the tail end of a terrible political season.  The Republican party leaders want to win back the Senate and the White House in November. They had several potential presidential candidates running against the Republican who was already promised the chance.  The want-to-be’s couldn’t be.

The only woman running started off by saying that she raised 23 foster children.  It turned out that she got paid to take care of each of them for a week or two, not quite the same as raising them.  During a debate, she could not remember whether she had five kids or three - she went with three.  Then she went public about meeting a random woman who attributed her son’s mental retardation to a vaccination that he had received.  The candidate’s statement made us wonder whether she herself had been given the same medication.  She actually won in Iowa and wanted us to consider her a serious person and candidate.  How dumb did she think we were?

This failed candidate was followed by one who thought that the chair of the FED was a traitor for trying to help the economy, the job for which he was appointed.  This challenger was desperate to close three federal agencies but could only remember two of them.  How could he imagine that we were as dumb as he was?

The next one wanted to build an American community on the Moon.  We could have called them Lunatics but ended up calling him one.

The next one wanted an end to prenatal testing, birth control and abortion for any reason and he was against sex between married couples who do not plan to have more children.  At some point his wife must have realized that this applied to them. The candidate thought that we were dumb enough to go along with this scenario maybe because his wife was.

Then there was the one who could not keep up with current events or past affairs.  He wasn’t sure what was going on in Libya but was sure that the President was doing the wrong thing there. He also claimed that he could not recall some of his most expensive affairs. He hoped that we were as dumb as he was.

At the end with none of the other contenders appearing reasonable enough to fool the American voter, the candidate who was originally promised the run got the nod.

He attacked the President on the economy promising to fix our economic problems because he had 25 years experience at a private equity company.  Instead of letting us see all his good work, he kept the dealings secret fearing we wouldn’t understand and hoping that we were too dumb to ask questions.  When we did ask, he made sure that none of his work would be made public.  He thought that we would just assume that he did good work because he made a lot of money doing it.

He announced that he wanted to change the tax code to not only keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in place but to actually reduce their taxes further.  When asked how his projected $5 trillion tax cut for the rich over a ten year period would help the economy, he gave a Reagan answer that the money will trickle down from the “job creators” to the middle class.  He assumed that we would forget that the economy was booming when taxes on the rich were higher - like in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the 90s up until the tax breaks started in 2001.  After those breaks were put in place the economy tanked.  The stock market had lost half its value, we lost eight million jobs and the unemployment rate doubled.  The Bush tax cuts combined with our entrance into two unnecessary wars doubled our national debt.

The Republican nominee has now said that he will fix the economy by cutting tax rates for the rich but that it would not mean that the middle class would have to pay more taxes.  He went on to promise that it would be revenue neutral neither adding to nor subtracting from our economy and also said it would not reduce the amount of taxes the rich pay.  So in essence his tax plan would have no effect on anyone or anything.  Did he think we wouldn’t notice? Could we be that dumb?

And yet with such a terrible candidate running against such an excellent and popular President, you would think that it would be no contest. Surely the vast majority of the population would be smart enough to realize that the contender has no clothes, but now, weeks before the election, we are asked to believe that the race is close.  The President was well ahead before the debate after his opponent was heard telling a small private audience that he believed that 47% of Americans not only pay no income tax but also consider themselves victims and cannot ever be made responsible.  (He has since said that he was wrong - clearly an honest mistake.) Now, after the President seemed too polite in the debate, the public opinion allegedly has swung in favor of the opponent.  The people who changed their minds did so because they thought that the contender seemed more confident even as he consistently misrepresented his position and denied the President’s accomplishments.  It was form over content.  How dumb could voters be to change our mind based on a 90 minute appearance?

I think that the answer is in and it is not pretty. 

Many of us really are that dumb. 

But how did this happen?  Who’s to blame?  It could be our education system that fails to teach most students how to think.  It could be our parents who didn’t show us role models of intelligent adults making considered decisions.  It could be our media which have failed to ask the hard questions leaving many of us unaccustomed to thinking critically.  It could be our culture that distracts us with more information than we can juggle. 

Whatever the cause, the condition is clear. The solution will have to be a concerted effort to improve ourselves as a people.  It begins by admitting that we have a problem.  Many of us are dumb and the condition is both contagious and dangerous.

Let us be smart enough to realize it and persistent enough to improve it.

Solving the "Unsolvable"

We are being given to understand that our country is facing some problems that can not be solved, at least easily.  We have a housing foreclosure crisis with millions of homes affected.  We have a deficit of one trillion dollars a year with a cumulative total approaching $16 trillion.  We face bankruptcy in Social Security and Medicare within the next 30 years.  We have an unemployment rate of close to 8%, almost twice normal.  We have had troops in Afghanistan for more than a decade and can’t leave until the people are able to run their own country. We have a tax code that everyone agrees is too complex and unfair with half of the taxpayers paying nothing at all in federal or state income tax and the rich paying at very low rates.  Our government is too large trying to do too much for too many.  We have at least 12 million families of illegal immigrants needing jobs and government services.  We have one party whose members are at war with members of the other doing what they can to see the President fail.  We have elections that are being bought by unidentified influence peddlers.

What can be done?

We can dramatically reduce foreclosures by getting lending banks to allow families facing foreclosure to pay only the current interest rate (around 3.5%) on their current balance until ready to assume full payments again or sell their home without a great loss.

Our deficit can be significantly reduced by doing the following:

We could close many of our foreign military bases and aid.  The money, tens of billions of dollars,  we spend there stays there instead of circulating here.  We are also less likely to go to war and not as prone to offending our hosts, if our foreign military footprint were reduced significantly.We can begin to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and curtail our foreign aid to them.  We could review all of the $51 billion we spend on foreign aid  giving only where it will be put to best use and for only a short term.

We could reduce fraud and waste in government agencies.  We could review each federal program to see if any can be eliminated, reduced or combined with similar ones, especially in national defense and regulatory agencies.  We should revise the tax code to generate at least $200 billion more a year with the top 2% paying for half the increase.  We could stop producing the penny and nickel both cost more to produce than they are worth.  We could end our unsuccessful war on drugs, especially marijuana which is less harmful and more beneficial than are alcohol, tobacco or even coffee, all of which are legal. This would save billions a year.

There is much we can do to save Social Security and Medicare.  First, we can raise the FICA payment from 7.65% of the first $110,000 of earned income paid by the employer and the employee, to 8% or as much as 10% from both for earnings up to $250,000.  This would add significantly to the trust funds for both and help make current payments.  The retirement age could also be raised slightly over time - we are living longer and healthier.  Medicare costs could be reduced by focusing on the small percent of people using the majority of medical services.  It is claimed that 5% use 50% of services while 10% use two thirds of it.  Who are they and how best could they be served?  Are some costing money while being kept alive artificially?  Are patients too old or sick being treated as though they would recover when it is clear that they won’t?  Can the cases of cancer and heart disease be identified and dealt with before they become expensive or life threatening? Can we reduce obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol abuse as well as stress in our culture?

We have an unemployment rate that is twice as high as normal with about 13 million people unemployed.  At the same time we have millions of American jobs performed in other countries like India, China and Pakistan.  We have another eight million American jobs currently held by document-free workers here from other lands.  We are also importing thousands of foreign workers for technical jobs that Americans could be doing.  By making changes in these job drawing scenarios, we could recapture millions of jobs for Americans in need of them. To this end we could eliminate all incentives for outsourcing jobs and pressure companies like Apple, Polo, United Airlines and AOL to do all of their American business in America.  We could insist that all employers run EVerify on all of their employees to ensure that their jobs are taken by eligible workers and ensure that jobs that skilled Americans can do are not going to imported technicians.

We have a tax code that can be simplified, made more fair and produce much more revenue.  We can start by eliminating all itemized deductions for individuals, except for the self-employed.  There would be a standard deduction like $20,000/$40,000 for each head of household individual/couple. There would be no credits for education, dependents, childcare or earned income. Then we could have all sources of income considered equal and combined - Social Security payments, dividends, interest, capital gains, unemployment insurance, earned income, etc.  There would then be a few tax brackets that could range from 10%-35%, less than the current 39.6% rate. The tax code would exist for the sole purpose of collecting taxes and not to encourage or discourage social or economic behavior.  Helping students, the poor and the disabled can be done directly, as it currently is with food stamps, Medicare, Pell Grants, Stafford loans and Social Security.  These programs can be expanded to directly assist participants and recipients.  All income sources would be counted at 100% of actual except for earned income.  In this case the FICA withheld would be deducted from the gross earnings for the net taxable earned income. These changes would raise at least $200 billion a year, half of which would come from the top 2% of income families.   

Finally, we have a political system that has been co-opted by big business interests.   These interests use armies of lobbyists, salesmen, to persuade elected officials to pass laws favorable to them by offering them money for their re-elections.  Politicians become distracted from their original goal and mandate - to represent their people.  Corporations are now considered people with first amendment rights to free speech which includes spending unlimited amounts of money to sway politicians.  The solution to this problem is clear but not easy - end all campaign financing.  Primary and general election campaigns should be much shorter and could be limited to position papers, televised interviews and debates.  We should be able to learn what the candidate has done, what positions have been taken and what the person would do if elected to solve the problems that face the country at the time.  Then an informed electorate could decide for themselves who should represent them.  Elected officials would not owe allegiance to fundraisers and large contributors. There would be no advertising and no lies or false allegations because everything would be publicly fact checked by non-partisan organizations.

These "unsolvable" problems can and must be solved, soon.

Something From/For Nothing

When I was young, my father had one phrase that he kept using with me: “You don’t get nothing for nothing.” He had trouble with English and didn’t know about the problem with double negatives.  What he meant was that you can’t get something from nothing.  Apparently, many Americans never heard that same information.

Today, I see many Americans expecting something for nothing or at least for a discount. Today half of the American families pay no state or federal income tax.  They expect to receive all government services for nothing because it is coming to them. Seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare say they expect it to take care of them forever because they paid into it and deserve it.  The fact of the matter is that most received more benefits in one year than they paid in 30.  They didn’t work hard and even if they did it was to be paid at the time not so that the government will take care of them in their last 30 or 40 years.

The hard working also want something for nothing.  Corporate CEOs and Wall Street brokers expect to receive millions of dollars a year even if they fail, to get multi-million dollar golden parachutes if they are fired for accomplishing too little and then a low tax rate on the money they never really “earned” to begin with.

We also have people who come here illegally wanting all the benefits of American citizenship while still declaring their loyalty to their beloved homeland which they left because they couldn’t stand living there.  We have naturalized citizens who don’t learn English expecting all government services from passports to voters pamphlets to be also in their native language if that language is Chinese or Spanish.

We have fellow Americans who can trace their ancestors’ residence here back to the 1700’s expecting to live on government benefits without working because their distant ancestors worked too hard under terrible conditions.  We have people who contribute nothing to the country expecting to get as much medical treatment as possible for free because they don’t buy insurance and know that American hospitals must take of them regardless.

But now there is a new twist to the something-from-nothing theorists.  It comes from the worlds of theoretical, particle, cosmological and quantum mechanics physics.  Stephen Hawkins, who has the best reason in the world to be an atheist, has theorized that the world could exist without a creator because everything comes from nothing and there was never anything before nothing since nothing has no time or space. ( And yet he also says he does not believe in philosophy). Other notable physicists have come up with varieties of the big bang theory (also the name of the funniest comedy on T.V.) with many supposing that it all started when nothing exploded into something causing a chemical reaction which then created all the planets and every element found on earth today including hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and even gold and silver. They say our bodies come from exploding stars.  All of it they say was born from nothingness.

One group of quantum mechanic physicists is coming close to what sounds like the right answer.  They believe that the universe is one big quantum mechanical computer system which creates the universe the way a quantum mechanical computer can create different realities.  This begs the question:  where did the universal quantum computer come from?  The answer is not China.  Another school of theoretical physics, a very small one, believes that it is all just in our minds and that we have created the universe.  If that is true, I want to make some big changes in the universe that I have created, starting with better weather, good health and fewer insects.

I believe that physicists should stop trying to justify their atheism and see creation as something close to the quantum computer analogy.  Here is my theory.

I believe that the universe is driven by three basic realities:  the infinite is finite (as above so below); everything has and is consciousness (making the infinite finite and the finite infinite, while every outside has an inside); and that everything that begins must end, also known as entropy.

To the theist this translates to: G-d is infinite and finite and His consciousness creates the universe.  There was nothing before consciousness because nothing can precede it.   Like the Zen koans - “what is the sound of a tree falling in the forest if no one hears it?”  and “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” What both are saying is that without consciousness, nothing can be said to exist.

Physicists are slowing coming to these conclusions.  They already have endorsed the notion of entropy being life’s way of changing energy (consciousness) without ever losing or gaining energy in the universe.  It has also found the existence of fractals which are infinite iterations of form within all objects.  So a leaf, which is finite, has an infinite number of fractals - the infinite is finite, the finite infinite. And now some theoretical physicists have realized that everything is conscious - from sub atomic particles to single cell organisms to the earth, outer space and the entire universe.  They are about to realize that everything is and has consciousness.  The Zen Buddhists call this big mind, small mind - the latter being part of the former.   In Vedanta, G-d is said to be Sat, Chit Ananda or Truth, Consciousness and Joy.

My theory makes all the theoretical physics theories also correct.  The world is in our minds because our minds are part of the universal mind.  Everything did come from nothing in the sense that consciousness in not a thing but the space that contains and creates all things.  The universe is like a quantum computer and is creating everything because this computer is consciousness.  The big bang was the originating cause of our universe because it was what happened when consciousness created the objects of its awareness, like a brain getting great ideas.

So something comes from a nothing that is the source of everything as well as its constant companion.

Why Is Romney Running and Who Should Vote for Him?

The first question we could be asking is why is Romney running to be President of the United States? It’s not the money.  Romney makes more than $20 million a year without lifting a finger. He surely doesn’t need the $400,000 a year salary that goes with the job.  He does not need to live in the White House because he has many fine homes and with his net worth at about a quarter of a billion dollars, he could live anywhere he wants.

He surely has no ideology or plan to help our country. He has suggested no plan for tax reform other than making the rich richer and the poor poorer.  His plans for the military is to increase it to equal a certain percent of the GNP, regardless of our defensive needs.  He has no plans for increasing hiring or for reducing the number of home foreclosures.

He has no national political experience and worked in government for only four years.  When he left the governor’s office he had all evidence of his time there removed from computers and file cabinets.  When he left office, his state was number 47 out of 50 states in job creation.  He introduced health care reform which was the model for the Affordable Care Act, but now is against it even though it has been one of his few successes.

He says that he is the man for the job because he has 25 years of business experience but he doesn’t want us to know what that experience really was.  It appears that his company got into buying struggling companies, borrowing large amounts to pay for them, shrinking their work force and benefits, taking large commissions and then letting them go bankrupt.  This does not create jobs.  Many of the jobs his firm did create were in China and India by outsourcing the work.

He wants to reduce taxes on the rich but won’t share his tax returns with the public. The one year’s return he did reveal showed that he had much of his wealth offshore and in Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes himself while not using his wealth to create jobs in America.

He calls himself severely conservative which means that he is against gay marriage,  abortion and unions. But when he was in government he said that he was in favor of those social issues.

So why is he running?  Why was McCain running when he too had no need of the money having married well the second time.  I think it was for the same reason and might have even been George W.’s reason for running.

They were competing with their fathers. 

George W,’s father was a war hero, a member of Congress, head of the CIA, Vice President and President of the United States.  George W. joined the Air Force reserves to avoid battle and then was AWOL at that.  He was a failed businessman and sports team owner.  He had problems with substance abuse.  He then became a successful governor and ran for President like his father had done.  He had twice as many terms as his dad, but almost destroyed the country in the process.

John McCain's father and grandfather were both four star admirals in the Navy.  John had less than one year of combat experience flying planes in Viet Nam.  He was captured and held as a POW for five terrible years.  He realized soon that his military career would never equal his father’s.  He remarried well, marrying a rich heiress whose father helped John get into Arizona politics. But being rich and a senator was not equal to a four star admiral, but being President, Commander-in-Chief, would trump old dad. The admiral is still ahead on points.

Mitt Romney's father had been head of an American car company and governor of Michigan.  He was a contender for the Republican nomination for President even though he was a Mormon and was born in Mexico, coming to America at age five.  His son Mitt got into and through high school, college and graduate school because of his father and was then given a moneymaking business to run soon after school.  He made a lot of money at Bain capital outsourcing jobs, reducing payrolls and benefits and sometimes, bankrupting the affected companies.  He was governor of Massachusetts for one term.  But still had not equalled his father.  Becoming President would surpass his father.  The essence of Romney is competition and who better to beat than his own father?

I have come to realize, after talking about this to a friend, that the result of these three men trying to compete with their fathers, is that none ended up doing what they would have really wanted to be or for which they were best suited .

That explains why Romney seems so uncomfortable in the political arena.  His father wanted to be President but failed so if Mitt runs he wins.  But Mitt could have been great at something meaningful.  With his looks and little passion, he could have been a matinee idol. He could have been a successful male model.  He could have been the Marlboro man.

The same with the other two.

John McCain got into, attended and graduated from Annapolis, paid for completely by taxpayer dollars, only because of his father and his father's father.  He was the second worst student in his graduating class, perhaps just ahead of Oliver North.  He apparently didn't like it and had no talent for it.  With his charm and good looks, he could have been a business major at some state school and become a successful salesman, actor or male model.  He could have worked in his second wife's liquor business as sales manager.

George Bush also was accepted into, attended and graduated from his father's alma mater because of his father.  He became a pilot, like his father but did it in the reserves and after a while stopped going on required flights.  He went into business like his father and failed terribly.  He went into politics, like his father, and did pretty well, but it was in Texas. He ran for President as his father had and we know what happened.  He hated the job but he did beat his father, he had two terms to Dad's one.  He could have pursued a vocation that he actually enjoyed and had some talent for.  He too was an attractive and charming guy who like McCain was not very bright.  He would also have been great at sales.  He had great people skills.

Unfortunately, all three men wasted their talents and happiness trying to compete instead of being who they really were.  This is probably most painfully true about Mitt.


The next question is: who should vote for Mitt Romney?  First, they must be Republican - 24% of the electorate.  Being Republican also means being white and Christian.  A recent study found that 90% of Republicans are white and 90% are Christian.  The other 10% either didn’t understand the question or just don’t understand what their best interests are. Besides being a white Christian Republican ( a redundancy), they should also be rich, at least in the top two percent of family income, receiving more than $250,000 a year because if reelected, President Obama will raise their taxes while Romney might even lower them.  But they have to be aware that lowering taxes on the rich in 2001 and 2003 helped create the economic disaster from which we are currently recovering.  If taxes are lowered even more for the rich, regulations loosened and military spending increased our deficit will grow even more rapidly putting even the rich at risk of losing money, customers and stock value.

Other potential Romney voters might be white Christian Republicans who are not in the top 2% of income recipients but hold very strong cultural values.  Some, like the evangelicals, love their Savior and hate gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims and foreigners in His name.  They feel compelled to vote against the President even if it makes them suffer more economically affected by the service program cuts that have been promised by candidate Romney.  These evangelicals might even believe that Mormons are not Christians, but prefer them to what they perceive as a black, Muslim, socialist, pro-gay, pro-abortion and anti-gun foreigner (Kenyan or Hawaiian) President. 

And of course every Mormon and everyone who contributes to Fox “news” is duty bound to vote for challenger Romney.

I think that that covers all the likely Romney voters.

That means that if you are not white or Christian or very rich, you shouldn’t vote for the challenger unless you care nothing about your own or your country’s best interests. If you are a member of a union, work for the government, need health care coverage, are against the U.S. military build up, are in favor of women’s reproductive rights, approve of gay unions, care about the poor, want to avoid saber rattling that could lead us into war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or Yemen, care about the environment, believe in voter’s rights, want to be able to look forward to receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits in the future and/or think that gun violence has gone too far, should and must vote to reelect the President.  “Should” because it would be in your best interest as well as the nation’s and “must” because every vote counts.