Saving the Affordable Care Act

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking a Middle Ground

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illegal immigration is another sore point.

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

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

I have a slight compromise:

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

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

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

The federal income tax code is a third major issue.

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

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

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

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

A Change Needed in American Education

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

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

As a result, standards have been lowered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Income Inequality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting Our Sacred Cows

Protecting Our Sacred Cows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny isn’t it?

What to do About Our Univited Guests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Political Party and Agenda

A New Political Party and Agenda

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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