Monday, June 13, 2016

A Plague on Both Your Houses

"A plague o' both your houses! Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat to scratch a man to death! A braggart, a rogue, a villain . . ."
          Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1 by William Shakespeare


Many voters, including yours truly, are feeling emotions about the two major political party nominees for president similar to the emotions in this famous quote from William Shakespeare. The question many are asking themselves is, what should I do?
What should I do?

There are some who will hold their noses and vote for whomever they perceive to be the lesser of two evils. There are some who will not vote. And there are others, again like yours truly, who plan to vote for a third party candidate.

I have been a registered Democrat for over 43 years, since I could register at the age of 18. I was such an active and loyal Young Democrat before then that I was actually appointed a Democratic Committeeman before I could vote.

In those 43 years, although half the time the Democratic nominee was not who I supported in the primary, I voted Democratic in each presidential election. Each of those times, I felt that the Democratic nominee would positively affect our country. In other words, I have never voted for the lesser of two evils according to my analysis of the candidates. For other offices I have also always voted for the candidate I thought was best for the position, but they were not always a Democrat.

During those 43 years, I served 5 terms as a local elected official, always as a Democrat. I even served as vice president and president of that local board.

As the party turned more and more away from workers and from peace, and towards corporate interests and war as a solution, I felt more and more dissonance.


In the movie “The Matrix”, Neo is offered the choice of a red or blue pill. If he takes the blue pill, he will continue in his ignorance and seeing an illusion of reality. If he takes the red pill, he will see real reality. This year I feel like I’ve taken the red pill and suddenly discover that both parties are against workers and for the moneyed interests, including weapons manufacturers, which makes them prone to war.

I don’t believe it was always like this. I believe the Republicans, although always in my lifetime more for the moneyed interests than for those less able to care for themselves, became even more so after the “Reagan Revolution” of the early 1980s and the Democrats followed suit with the Clintons' “Democratic Leadership Council” followed by triangulation in the late 1980s and early 1990s.



Since then, workers' real pay has decreased along with the rights and memberships in unions. Also since then, the income of the top 1% has continued to increase. We have been at constant war since 2001 through administrations of both parties. Both Democrats and Republicans have picked executives from Wall Street, not unions, for most economic advisory positions.


I have previously flirted with turning to the Green Party several times because, as a progressive, I was more in line with their stated public public policies than the Democrats', but always decided to stay a Democrat. I almost turned Green in 2015, but then Bernie Sanders entered the race and I thought he might be able to save the Democratic Party from its own trajectory. Almost.

On May 25th, when it became apparent to me that the Democratic Party had done everything it could within and outside the law to make sure the Sanders Revolution would fail, I went online and changed my registration from Democrat to Green.


At this time I fully plan to vote for the Green Party nominee for president, whether it is Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. I will not discuss all of the things I find unacceptable in both Clinton and Trump as you are no doubt aware of all of those arguments. As far as the argument that we should vote for one to prevent the other from being elected, I will retort a quote from Eugene Debs:
"I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than to vote for what I don't want and get it."
I recognize and appreciate the reasoning behind those will will vote for one of them out of fear that the other might win. That kind of voting never has been and never will be for me. I have two grandchildren and I am more motivated now to try to do whatever I can to help progressives and fight back against the drift to the right in both parties.

Although I think that those who do not like their party’s nominees should not vote for them and find an alternative among the Green, Libertarian, or some other party or an Independent who best represents your views, I also have a suggestion for those of you who WILL vote for one of the two major party nominees.

If you don’t like who the major parties have nominated and want to express that displeasure, even if you will vote for one to prevent the other from winning, change your party registration. In November, you can vote for any candidate and are not limited to your party. If the Democrats and Republicans see their registered numbers go down and the registration of third parties or Independents go up significantly, they MIGHT begin to correct their course.


If you don’t like the situation voters have been put in, you can’t just sit back and do nothing. I began this article with a quote from Shakespeare, included a quote from Debs, and will end with one from Edmund Burke:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Sunday, January 3, 2016

2016 Campaigns – The Key Traits of Leadership

As this is being written, 2016 campaigns for governors, state legislators, US Congress and, of course, the presidency are heading into high gear.

So far, in the presidential campaigns we have seen both serious issues and trivial issues being handled by the candidates in both serious and trivial ways (not necessarily matching the seriousness of the issue being addressed).

The media, at least the commercial media, tends to focus reporting on political races as if they were sports events rather than serious attempts by a democratic republic to elect the officials who will represent us. Articles about polling results, who has pulled ahead of whom. (Compare that to sports articles about which team is stronger and predicting who will win before the game has begun.) Articles about how much money each candidate has raised. (Compare that to salary cap issues for sports with salary caps, or how much owners are willing to spend for those with no salary caps). Articles about staff changes and who has managed to hire the most experienced staff. (Compare that to articles about which coach is leaving/being fired and who their replacement will be).

Although I am very much more interested in how each candidate addresses the major issues facing us rather than the sports reporting by the media, I realize that their answers to major issues also has a drawback in choosing our representatives. I spent 19 years as a local elected official. Even in that relatively minor position, I faced so many more issues during each four-year term than I knew I would be facing when running for election or re-election. A cursory glance at recent American history can see blatant examples of this. During the 2000 election, most commentators said the main issue was “who would you be most comfortable sitting down and having a beer with”. We were coming off a period of peace and prosperity, about a decade after the Soviet Union surrendered to freedom and free markets. Who knew that less than one year after the election the president would need to deal with a terrorist strike in New York that killed thousands? Would the voters have made the same decision in each state (the change in electoral votes from Bush to Gore in any state would have changed the election results)? It would have been valuable to concentrate on who would handle the situation better. I am not saying the result would have been different but it might have been. Similarly, in the 2004 election, while in the midst of two wars, almost nobody was speaking about the coming collapse of the US economy. Again, had that been an issue in 2004, we may or may not have chosen differently.

So in making our decisions among all the candidates for the various positions in our country, about the only thing we know is that we don’t know all the issues the winners will have to address during their terms in office. As United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously stated at a press briefing on February 12, 2002:
“. . . as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

Although frequently made fun of for this statement, Rumsfeld was completely accurate, whether discussing wartime issues or the next term of office for an elected representative.

So what is a conscientious voter to do?

I have tried to extrapolate from how a candidate deals with the “known knowns” and try to make an educated guess as to how they would deal with the “unknown unknowns.” A commentary in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer has attempted to put forward a suggested structure in our decision-making. While only referring to the presidential campaign, it can be used for any candidate for any office.

Larry M. Starr, the director of the doctoral program in strategic leadership at Philadelphia University, John Pourdehnad, a principal consultant at Systems Wisdom, LLC, and Vincent Barabba, a member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and a former director of the US Census Bureau, wrote a piece entitled “Voters, focus on key traits of leadership” which appears on page C5 of the newspaper and "Beyond the bravado, the key traits of leadership" in the online edition.

Their excellent definition of leadership is:
“. . .: someone who is responsible for the big issues relating to purpose, vision, and strategy. They are not just administrators, who deal primarily with operations, or managers who are generally responsible for tactics.”

The authors reviewed the studies on leadership and found that effective leaders have four particular characteristics. The authors suggest that voters ask candidates to demonstrate how they have exhibited these characteristics in their past.

The first characteristic they believe prospective leaders must have is the ability to:
“. . . demonstrate a talent for the role they are seeking, the imagination to seek creative options, and the integrity and courage to pursue worthy ends with well-considered means.”

The second characteristic that candidates should demonstrate to voters is that they:
“. . . possess relevant skills, gained from a variety of experiences, that enable them to be persuasive when a critical issue is at stake and collaborative when it is important to get buy-in or support.”

Third, the authors suggest that, since personal knowledge, although important, should not be the only information relied upon:
“Candidates should be asked to describe the ideal advisory teams they would put in place to tackle various problems. Would they assemble a ‘team of rivals’ or a team of sycophants? We need candidates who understand that being surrounded by people who won’t challenge the boss with an alternative perspective or disagreeable option is a fatal flaw when it comes to decision-making.”

The fourth characteristic that effective leaders should demonstrate is “practical wisdom.” As Starr, et al, state:
“Responding to events in a flippant or superficial way without reflection can be dangerous. A candidate for president should not demonstrate a ready-fire-aim approach to problem-solving. And candidates who demonstrate this approach, in debates or on the campaign trail, should be asked how they would avoid such behavior in the future.”

Without taking the side of one particular candidate, or even one particular party, I believe this article is a good framework for voters to evaluate all candidates, for whatever public office they are running.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Guns, Death, and Rights

For most people in the United States, the issue of guns used to commit acts of violence presents a problem not easily resolved. On the one hand, the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individuals have a right to own firearms. (McDonald v. Chicago, US Supreme Court, 2010). On the other hand, during the last decade over 315,000 Americans have been killed by firearms. Compare that to the slightly more than 300 Americans killed by foreign terrorists at home and abroad during the same time period and we can see that deaths from firearms is a greater threat to Americans by a factor of 1000.

The question at hand is: How can we lessen the number killed by firearms without infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms?

For reasoned discourse to take place, all parties to such discourse have to agree that: 1) There is a constitutional right to bear arms. Although the wording of the Second Amendment leaves it open to various interpretations, the Constitution means what a majority of the Supreme Court says it means. By a 5-4 ruling in 2010, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to grant the individual right to bear arms. Until there is either a constitutional amendment that states the opposite, or a later Supreme Court ruling that reverses McDonald v. Chicago, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment; and 2) Gun violence in the United States is a public health issue. Whether one is for more restrictions on gun ownership, which the Supreme Court said would be constitutional if they are "reasonable", or whether one believes in other solutions for making our society less violent, we have to be willing to admit that using firearms makes violence easier than using other weapons available to individuals and that over 31,000 Americans dying each year due to gun violence makes it a public health issue.

Let me take you back to when you learned the philosophy of the founding of our country. We believe that all people have equal unalienable rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson) or life, liberty and property (Locke). We believe that the purpose of government is "to secure these rights." This issue presents a conflict between our unalienable rights to life and liberty and the government must protect both. Hence the conflict that reasonable people have with this issue.

I would love to see a civil discussion between reasonable people on each side of this issue. I imagine, and hope, that there are some points of policy that both sides could agree on, while agreeing to disagree on others. Some that I would throw out for discussion include the following:
1). Law-abiding, well-trained individuals should have the right to own handguns and hunting rifles.
2). There is no legitimate reason for an individual to own an assault weapon. (Definition of assault weapon).
3). The NRA has some of the best safety training available for firearms. For an individual to own a firearm, they need to pass either an NRA course on basic safety or an equivalent course.
4). It is reasonable to restrict an individual to one firearm purchase per month. This restriction would be to prevent someone from having a business supplying those who cannot pass a background check with weapons.
5). It is reasonable to require people who own firearms to demonstrate periodically that they a) still possess their weapon, b) still know how to use it safely, and c) do not have any apparent intention of using the weapon to harm themselves or others.
6). It is reasonable to require gun sellers to be trained (by video or otherwise) about how to make an educated guess whether a purchaser is planning to use the firearm to harm themselves or others. Along with this obligation there needs to be immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution if the firearm seller follows such procedures. This immunity would apply if they were wrong and they sold the firearm to someone who did intend to do harm, and also if they were wrong and refused to sell the firearm to someone they thought was going to use it to do harm.

These six public policy proposals are what I have come up with as a start to helping to lessen the number of deaths from firearms. I would love to hear whether you agree with these, disagree with these, or have others you would like to suggest. Please comment with your suggestions.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Chronic Illness with a Stock Market/Economic Analysis

I have been suffering with a chronic illness at least since 2009. I say "at least" because my wife and I can look back and see the beginnings of symptoms which we both ignored years before 2009.

Anyway, in the fall of 2009, I received a clinical diagnosis of myasthenia gravis (MG). It was clinical because I tested negative on all the specific tests for illnesses and the diagnosis was based on my symptoms instead of any particular test result. For about four years I somewhat controlled the symptoms through a combination of oral medication, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatments each month, and having a cane and/or scooter available for the times I was really weak.

Beginning in the fall of 2013, symptoms got worse and more symptoms appeared that seem immune to the IVIG. Because of these new symptoms, I had to leave (on disability) a job I loved. Since then, hundreds of tests have been performed. I test positive on many of the symptom-related tests but still test negative on the specific illness tests. At this point, the doctors' best guess is that I have some combination of auto-immune and mitochondrial diseases, possibly, but not necessarily, including MG. One doctor has said that she doesn't think there's been a test invented to say exactly what I have and so she is concentrating on ways to try to control my symptoms.

The problem many of us with chronic illness have is to get across what we are experiencing, especially for those of us who often "don't look sick", as the well-meaning unknowing friends comment. Not too long ago, I came across one way to explain that. It is called "The Spoon Theory" by Christine Miserandino. You can read about it here: http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory/


I started using that explanation, which, in short, says that each day we are given a certain number of spoons and have to expend them on our activities until we are out of spoons. It exceeds any explanation I was able to come up with until that time, but I have found it still had a couple of holes in it. Such as, why do I seem to have x number of spoons on one day and y on the next? Or why can I spend more spoons than I thought I had when something takes more spoons than I expected?

Probably because part of my previous perfect job involved teaching economics to high school seniors, and partially because I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to grow my IRA by playing around in the stock market, I've come up with a new way to explain it that I hope is as clear as "The Spoon Theory" and can plug the holes I found in it. I call it my "Stock Market/Economic Analysis" theory.

(Image courtesy of bluebay at FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

Let's assume that there is a stock market in personal energy that we all have accounts in. This market is not very volatile, which means that usually it is close to the total it was the day before. Let's also assume that each day we are permitted to spend a certain percentage of our accounts in "personal energy vouchers."

Similar to "The Spoon Theory", we have those vouchers to spend in energy-costing activities each day. Some activities cost more vouchers and some cost less.

However, unlike "The Spoon Theory", we can buy extra vouchers on margin, the way one can in a non-retirement investment account. So if we are at our child's wedding and want to dance, or at a former student's last college debate and we aren't getting home until 1 a.m., we can, in essence, borrow vouchers from the future to spend today. Of course, those margin purchases have to be paid back and so for the next day or more, we need to conserve our spending of energy vouchers to pay back the market for the ones we borrowed.

There are unexpected variables, and I envision them as I do unexpected swings in the stock market. Sometimes the energy market goes down, so our account has fewer energy vouchers in it. We still have the same percentage we can spend on average in a day, so we have less energy to spend that day even though we didn't borrow any in the recent past. And, pleasantly unexpectedly, sometimes the energy market goes up so that, for no discernible reason, we have more energy vouchers in a given day. Those are my favorite days.

Of course, on any of the days, those of us with invisible chronic illnesses often look the same, which leads well-meaning people to make hurtful comments like, "you don't look sick" or "you look good". (By the way, when I explain that to some people they ask me for advice on what they should say. The best advice I can give is to say something like "great to see you.")

I'd like to hear comments from people on my "Stock Market/Economic Analysis Theory" of chronic illness.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Women, Politics, and the Media in Pennsylvania

In this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer, Karen Heller (one of my favorite columnists) wrote an interesting opinion piece. (You can read it at http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/karen_heller/20140604_In_Pa___female_politicians_face_different_rules.html).

The thrust of her column is that women are not winning political races in Pennsylvania because of different rules for female candidates. Ms. Heller points out the fact that Pennsylvania is about to have an all-female congressional delegation because our one female representative in Congress, Allyson Schwartz, did not run for reelection so she could run for governor. In addition, in the Democratic race for the gubernatorial nomination, the two women candidates came in 2nd and 4th while the two males came in 1st and 3rd. She also points out that Pennsylvania has never elected a woman governor or senator.

Ms. Heller credits these statistics to the fact that there are different rules for women candidates. The main difference she cites is the likability quotient. Ms. Heller points out articles and comments which said that Representative Schwartz was not liked and that it was an issue when Hillary Clinton ran for president.

However, Pennsylvania has elected females to statewide office, the most recent being Attorney General Kathleen Kane in 2010. In the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary in 2008, Hillary Clinton easily beat Barack Obama. There are many municipal and county elected officials throughout the state who are female.

So, do Pennsylvania voters really care if female candidates are likable but not male candidates? Pennsylvania is a solid blue state when it comes to presidential elections since 1988. However, I remember comments in all of those campaigns about whether the Democratic or Republican nominee was more likable. Some phrased it as "who would you rather sit down and have a beer with". I would like to point out that all 14 of the candidates in those 7 presidential races were men. In 1988, George H. W. Bush was looked at as more likable than Michael Dukakis. In 1992 and 1996, many commented on how likable Bill Clinton was and how empathetic (usually a characteristic reserved for women) he was as he beat also likable candidates George H. W. Bush and Bob ("We've never had a president named Bob and I think it's time") Dole.

In 2000 and 2004, the likable George W. Bush beat aloof candidates Al Gore (although not in the popular vote) and John Kerry. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama was looked at as the more empathetic and likable candidate over John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Likability is an issue for all politicians and all races. One of the reasons that Rob McCord came in third instead of second in the gubernatorial primary is that voters perceived his "racist" attack on Tom Wolf to be nasty, i.e. not nice. Therefore, Rob McCord became less likable.

When making claims such as Pennsylvania never having elected a female governor or senator and attributing it to different rules for female candidates, I would like to see some numbers. The numbers I would like to see is how many men and how many women have run for governor of Pennsylvania in the Democratic and Republican primaries.

I would like to posit another theory, one that has been a sticking point for me (as I imagine the "different rules" argument has been for Ms. Heller). The media covers elections as if they are sports events. Who's ahead in the polls? Who's ahead in fundraising? I wish they would spend at least as much time discussing the issues and the candidates' stands on those issues. In fact, I would love to conduct an experiment, one that is not possible because we do have a free press who can report whatever they want.

I would like to see an election cycle go by in which the media reports the polls and fundraising in reverse order. That is, going into the Democratic gubernatorial primary, they would have reported that Katie McGinty had a big lead in polls and lots of money in her campaign account. They would have said that it looks like McCord would be a distant second with Schwartz right behind him, and that Wolf was badly trailing the others. What would the primary results have been? Would there have been any change? Would Tom Wolf have captured the nomination? I don't know the answer to that.

I would actually like to see the responsible media make a policy to not report fundraising or polling numbers but only to discuss the issues. If that happened, I think all candidates would have a more equal footing. I also think that Katie McGinty would have done much better than a poor 4th showing.

As far as the congressional race to replace Allyson Schwartz, I think it was more geography and name recognition than issues Polls were not reported except for one from 2013 that showed much of the district felt favorable to Margolies and had generally not heard of the others. And, as usual, the issues were generally not reported.

In the race for this district, which is mostly in Montgomery County but has a substantial Philadelphia portion, there were 3 candidates from Montgomery County and 1 from Philadelphia. Surprise, surprise, the candidate from Philadelphia won. I don't think it was a decision based on the sex of the candidates at all.

In the history of the Commonwealth, female candidates for Congress, Governor, and Senator are a relatively new phenomenon and I doubt that many Pennsylvania voters make their decisions based on the genitals of the candidates.

Friday, January 31, 2014

10 Best Points about the 2014 State of the Union Speech

1. The president gave Congress credit for much of the successes of his administration.

Much has been said on cable news and written about on social media about the president showing a lack of respect to the Congress in his state of the union speech. We will get to that. However, what is often overlooked is the president’s sixth paragraph:

“Here are the results of your efforts: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years. A rebounding housing market. A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. More oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years. Our deficits – cut by more than half. And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is." (emphasis added)

By doing this, the president made it clear that he would give credit to whoever helps him improve the economy and our national security. This was an olive branch by the president to Congress.

2. An emphasis on “opportunity” for all, not equal results.

Conservatives consistently accuse the president of being a socialist or a communist. (As social media has pointed out, with the stock market setting new records, CEOs and the wealthy doing better than they ever did before, and the middle class and poor suffering, President Obama must be the worst socialist ever.) Conservatives state that they want everyone to have an opportunity and decry the president for supposedly wanting equal results. That cannot be squared with this statement in the state of the union:

“And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all – the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.”

This is a description of the basic American Dream, although toned down from “you can get rich” to “you can get ahead.” I still believe in the president’s description and I believe most Americans do as well. We all want to have the opportunity to succeed, without success guaranteed. The disputes between ideologies seem to be what the government should be willing to do to provide that opportunity. The president provided us some of his vision:

“ But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class.”

3. The president’s emphasis that whether Congress agrees with him or not, he will use his executive authority to take steps to provide equal opportunity for all.

“Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

This is the part that has the Republicans in Congress, and Fox News, so upset. For five years they have been able to block most efforts by the president to improve the lives of average Americans. The notable exception being the first two years of his presidency when he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. However, many opportunities of those first two years were frittered away by the president bending over backwards to get the Republicans to agree with him. One example is the individual mandate in the ACA. This was a conservative, Cato Institute, idea to keep health care in the private sector instead of making the preferable single payer solution. The president was opposed to the individual mandate during the Democratic primaries, but backed down when he thought that was the only way to get Republican support for health care coverage opportunity for all. He was wrong. As soon as President Obama said he was for the individual mandate, the Republicans turned against it, calling it unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court wisely said was incorrect), and every Republican in the House and the Senate voted against it.

Now the president is willing to act, well, presidentially. He is willing to lead. The president would like Congress to help him, and he offers specific proposals in his speech as to how they can. But for the first time he states his willingness to go-it-alone to create a society that has more opportunity, is safer, and is more fair. In my opinion, this is at least three, and arguably five, years later than it should have happened. The people of the United States voted for the policies the president want in two presidential elections. Seldom does a president win two presidential elections with over 50% of the vote, but President Obama did so, running against the policies the Republicans in Congress want to force the president to follow. The president has had enough and is standing up for his principles without violating the Constitution.

4. The president did not allow any room for debate over the scientifically settled fact that global change is occurring.

“Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

For years, the climate-change-deniers in Congress have been trying to say that the 97% of scientists who say climate change is occurring are frauds. And so our government fiddles while the earth burns. The president is willing to take the lead, without Congress’ help if necessary, by working “with states, utilities, and others” to try to save human habitability on earth.

5. The president clearly pointed out that more immigration helps the United States financially. (as a history teacher and buff, I would like to point out it always has).

“Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement – and fix our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted. I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: when people come here to fulfill their dreams – to study, invent, and contribute to our culture – they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everyone. So let’s get immigration reform done this year.”

US history is riddled with various groups being considered the “other” and demonized with attempts to keep them out of this country. Benjamin Franklin spoke ill of German immigrants, spreading stereotypical lies about them, such as all of the boys must beat their mothers to be considered a man. However, given this historical bigotry, the first hundred years of our existence had no illegal immigrants. Why? Because all immigration was legal. Then in 1892 Congress passed the first anti-immigration bill called, The Chinese Exclusion Act. Now xenophobes are objecting to “illegal” immigrants, ignoring that our immigration law is based on both race and class, allowing more upper class white people in than lower class darker people. The president wants a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves to be good citizens and is urging Congress to take action.

6. The president emphasized training of workers for the jobs that are available.

“I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead an across-the-board reform of America’s training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now. That means more on-the-job training, and more apprenticeships that set a young worker on an upward trajectory for life. It means connecting companies to community colleges that can help design training to fill their specific needs.”

If successful, this will increase workers’ opportunity to succeed. It makes no sense kicking people off welfare (and, yes, thanks to the Republicans, unemployment), if we are not also training them to work at jobs that are available.

He even welcomes Congress’ help with this:

“And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs.”

7. The president indicated he might be open to more effective measurements of students’ abilities than standardized tests.

“It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test.”

The president’s education policies, which he has named “Race to the Top”, I have called “Race to the Bottom” because of its emphasis on standardized testing. My firm opinion is that standardized testing is a great way to get a country full of people willing to take orders, but not citizens with critical thinking and creativity skills. This emphasis needs to change (more projects, fewer tests) for us to really succeed in education.

8. 'I gave you a chance to provide high quality pre-K education. Now I’m going to do it.'

“Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every four year-old. As a parent as well as a President, I repeat that request tonight. But in the meantime, thirty states have raised pre-k funding on their own. They know we can’t wait. So just as we worked with states to reform our schools, this year, we’ll invest in new partnerships with states and communities across the country in a race to the top for our youngest children. And as Congress decides what it’s going to do, I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.”

Another point to providing equal opportunity for all, is to provide quality early education for all. There is no reason to wait until the age of six when all research shows that so much can be learned easier at an earlier age. And wealthy families make sure that their children do learn in the first six years, prior to formal school. Should a child’s opportunity be limited because their parents are poor, or ignorant of how to best educate a child? That would be neither a fair nor a just society, but it is the one we live in today.

9. The president emphasized the importance of equality for women in the workforce.

“Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work. She deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship – and you know what, a father does, too. It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode. This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall Street to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.”

The president hit this correctly - our policies involving women are an embarrassment. They do belong in a “Mad Men” episode more than in 21st century America. Let’s get with it. Fairness for all.

10. The president emphasized the importance of workers earning more money.

“Americans understand that some people will earn more than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.”

It is fair for full-time workers to not live in poverty. It is fair for business owners, who have been reaping record profits, to pay their workers more. But in addition, this will help the economy.

Our free market system is based on demand. If there is a demand for a good or service, someone will start a business to provide it and make a profit. If there is less demand, businesses will close or layoff workers. Demand is provided by people who need or want goods or services having the resources to buy those goods or services. This is why supply-side economics has failed for 30 years. If you give a rich business owner more money, supply-siders say, that money will trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs or raises. But that shows a total ignorance of the way our economy works. If there is no demand for something, what business owner in their right mind would hire people to provide it just because they received money from the government? None. Economists have estimated that putting a dollar in the hands of a poor person helps the economy approximately $1.40, but giving a dollar to a wealthy person helps the economy less than a dollar’s worth. The reason is simple. Poor people need to spend everything they get for food, clothing, and shelter. The rich can just bank the money.


The president also talked about retirement savings, benefits to the military, and other issues. I would summarize this state of the union speech by saying:
Leadership, fairness, opportunity for all.


Monday, January 13, 2014

Governor Christie's Traffic Problem

Governor Christie has a problem.

Christie seems to have taken two lines of defense in the so-called "Bridgegate Scandal." 1) I didn't know about it. 2) This is not the way my administration works.

First, a description of the scandal. As you know, someone in the Christie Administration ordered traffic problems to occur in Fort Lee, New Jersey, as political retribution. The guessing on the reason for the retribution varies. One theory is that whoever ordered it was so upset at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse Republican Christie, that they ordered the retribution. Another is that whoever ordered it did it for retribution against the Democratic leader of the state senate, who represents Fort Lee. What did the Democratic leader do? She sits on the committee that considers Governor Christie's judicial appointments and has helped block the candidates he wants on the courts. On August 12th Governor Christie publicly referred to the Democrats who did this as "animals". On August 13th, the infamous email from the Deputy Chief of Staff went to a Christie appointee on the bridge authority stating, "it is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Instead of questioning what she was talking about, the appointee replied, "got it."

For four days during the first week of school in September, two lanes from Fort Lee to the bridge were closed, causing severe traffic problems in New Jersey and possibly causing the death of one woman when EMTs were delayed reaching her.

Despite the uproar and the allegations of political vengeance, Governor Christie said that he did no investigation of the matter and first learned how serious it was on the morning the emails were published by the press, almost four months later. Although witty people have been commenting that Governor Christie not knowing what is going on qualifies him for a job in Washington, I don't think average voters will agree.

So the governor's first line of defense is that, like Sergeant Schultz, he knew nothing. (Sgt Schultz) Not really a good defense when you are seeking the nomination of the party who blames the president for not knowing that the website to sign people up for the Affordable Care Act would not work.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the governor did not know what his aides were up to, this brings up several other questions. After it happened, why didn't he find out why it happened? Why did it take a newspaper's investigative reporting to uncover what happened? Also, why would a Deputy Chief of Staff take it upon herself to violate state and federal laws to seek political retribution for something her boss may be upset about?

That latter question may be more of a problem for Governor Christie than the issue of whether he ordered the vengeance or not. I am assuming that whether he ordered it or not, there will not be any evidence uncovered that he did order it.

So if we are to believe this Deputy Chief of Staff took it upon herself to do this, why would she do such a thing? Governor Christie says that retribution is not "the tone" he has set with his administration. He says "I am not a bully."

Having observed Governor Christie for at least the last four years, does ANYONE within range of the media that covers New Jersey believe that? If you are not familiar with the governor's style, "tone", and ability to bully, watch the first two minutes of this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQAB4p20lc.

Either the governor knew about this retribution in advance, or the tone he set made his staff comfortable enough with political bullying to violate state and federal laws. Either way, the legitimate question is, is this the kind of person we want as our next president? If you don't think this will hurt his campaign, take a look at these political cartoons and reconsider: Christie bridge cartoons

Observing Governor Christie in office, my only surprise is that something like this did not leak earlier.