Category Archives: Affordable Solutions

#383 Job Creation to Address Climate Change

25 Monday May 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #383 BEGINS: Is there a simple, understandable way to get virtually everyone in the United States to support actions to address climate change? Secure support from the left, right, center, techies, climate deniers, etc.?

My conclusion is, “yes.” The simple approach is to link climate action to job creation.

Post-CIVID-19, the US is likely to experience an unemployment rate of 10+% for at least five (5) years, if not longer. Many pre-COVID-19 jobs will be lost permanently.

How does the US re-energize the economy post COVID-19? Focus on creating jobs associated with technologies that will reduce carbon emissions. Not just jobs installing solar panels and putting up wind generators but a wide range of jobs.

There are numerous technologies that could be implemented to reduce carbon emissions. Why point fingers about who’s right and who’s wrong about the causes of climate change? If you think climate change is fake news, then you need to talk to people worldwide in coastal cities. If you think climate change is just part of the earth’s natural warming and cooling cycle, then take a hard look at the chart of temperature change just since 1950.  Now imagine that same amount of increase by the end of the century.

OK, even if you don’t believe the climate data, the US still has a major problem – and that long-term economic growth. Don’t believe the economy is going to return to pre-COVID days. Look in your history books and study what’s happened after every major economic disruption or war – things change dramatically. Post-COVID-19 will be no different.

So let’s begin thinking about how to create new products and new jobs that also reduce the impact of climate change. If you’re still in denial about climate change, then just focus on the job creation part.

Yes, science is sometimes difficult to understand. Science denial is also a major talking point with many politicians.

Job creation, however, is not hard to understand. Jobs generate income and help people to a better life. Job creation also appeals to both sides of the political aisle. Rather than blaming someone else, why not start asking, “Is there a way to stimulate the economy long-term and address climate change? Is there a way to ensure a better lifestyle for our children and grandchildren”?

In this discussion, seems that scientists might be better off to spend less time on CO2 PPM, mean temperature – for many people it is difficult to understand or appreciate what a couple of degrees Celsius means – loss of amphibians, greater intensity of hurricanes, etc. Important topics? Yes. But not a front-line topic when you’re out of a job, which many people are going to be for some time.

Making the message about actions to address climate change more positive and less about how people must be prepared to “sacrifice” is also not necessary. With the right technology, people won’t experience sacrifice.

What’s the sacrifice with a more efficient HVAC? An electric lawn mower? (I use a manual push mower and time to cut is about the same as the neighbor’s gas-powered mower.) An electric car? Attractive solar panels on the roof that look like shingles? More trees? And many other ways to reduce CO2 that are not “sacrifices” and can be configured as fun, new products.

Some groups are working on taking a more jobs-focused approach to help gain support for actions to address climate change. I’m part of such a group. Let me know if you’d like to learn more. Comments welcome, as always.

#380: Shopping Centers — Surplus to Stimulating (“We Gotta Get Out…” #3)

03 Sunday May 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #380: If one believes COVID-19 will trigger some changes in societal behavior, then what behavior might be disrupted permanently after the immediate threat has dissipated? Last week’s entry discussed how the general public likely will demand more affordable or government-provided healthcare coverage.

This week’s entry addresses how shopping patterns might continue to be affected and the implications of major changes. The “stay-at-home” mandates during early months of COVID-19 accelerated the use of on-line shopping.

While some brick-and-mortar stores were able to generate on-line business for delivery or store-side pickup, many shoppers shifted to such on-line stores as Amazon. The shift affected food shopping as well. Even though most grocery stores remained open, many people ordered on line with curbside delivery at the store or home delivery.

The big unknown is whether consumer shopping behavior has been altered permanently. If it has, how will such behavioral change affect attitudes toward participating in such other large-crowd activities as football games, concerts, restaurants, even religious services? If people are satisfied to watch sporting events at home on large-screen TVs, to shop on-line, to have food delivered, to live-stream religious services on the same large-screen TV, then what happens to the physical structures supporting large-crowd activities?

For the businesses/organizations associated with these activities, what happens to the value of the real estate or the value of the franchise, whether the organization is a chain restaurant, retail outlet, or religious institution? (Interesting, the value of a sports franchise may be less affected since much of the value is not based on the number of fans attending an event but the advertising revenue associated with the media broadcast of the event.)

If the value of the real estate falls, then what should be done with the property? Let’s start with the most obvious real estate – shopping centers. As suburbs were developed following WWII, shopping centers became the de facto downtown for the suburbs. Just as the value of real estate in many downtowns declined as shopping centers proliferated, the value of shopping centers has declined as on-line shopping has proliferated.

Without having any hard data, the United States likely has at least two times the number of shopping centers needed. Some of the surplus shopping centers are large-footprint centers with multi-anchor stores and some more neighborhood centers and/or strip malls. Most larger centers also have a number of big-box stores on the periphery, which are also not needed.

What should be done with these surplus shopping centers and big-box stores? Converting the real estate to office space has been an option. However, following the coronavirus the US may end up with too many office buildings as well. As people were forced to work from home, and the implementation of technology was accelerated, many companies began to rethink requirements for (i) office space; (ii) employees on staff. The result of this rethinking is likely to be fewer office buildings and smaller staffs. (For more information about the impact on employment of the implementing more technology, download Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement).

If office space is not needed, then what could be done with these shopping centers? Why not address a national need and convert the shopping center to affordable housing? The coronavirus pointed out the irony that many workers deemed “essential” were also lower-paid workers. Converting shopping centers to affordable housing for these workers also would allow them to live closer to public transportation, which usually is available in larger shopping centers.

The shopping centers could be reconfigured to become true neighborhoods. Many shopping centers have large areas devoted to parking that could be converted to playgrounds, small parks, even neighborhood sports fields. Many centers are ringed with restaurants, dry cleaners, drugstores, etc., which could stay in place following redevelopment. With some creative planning, neighborhood schools could be built as part of the conversion. (School nicknames could incorporate the name of the former shopping center – the Carolinaplace Cougars or the SouthPark Sentinels. Just kidding.)

As a centerpiece of the neighborhood, the schools could be designed with classrooms for the traditional “3 R’s” education, as well as classrooms for introduction to sciences and the arts.

Neighborhood schools would reduce the need for and the inconvenience and cost of busing. Neighborhood schools would encourage children to participate in after-hours extra-curricular activities as well as be available, if needed, for remedial classes. Such here-and-now remedial classes would help students keep pace.

The proximity of the school near students’ homes would reduce the need for parents to spend money on expensive babysitting. Building design could include rooms adaptable for adult education and/or neighborhood meetings.

To help address the problem of limited access to healthcare faced by many lower-paid workers, the redeveloped shopping center could include a neighborhood clinic with office hours tied to non-working hours of neighborhood families. Clinics would serve basic needs, including physicals for children and adults and would be linked electronically to larger medical facilities. Such “preventive medicine” would reduce visits to ER.

Next week. More on post-coronavirus impact on societal behavior, including how religious institutions might be affected. Could some churches, synagogues and mosques suffer the same fate as many big-box stores?

#379: Healthcare Quagmire: We Gotta Get Out of This Place (Part 2)

25 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #379 is the second entry and addresses healthcare cost. At this point not sure how many entries.  Like #378 this entry is a bit long.

ENTRY #379:  At the end of part 1 of this series (#378), I indicated suggestions to help address inequities in society would be forthcoming. Let’s start with what appears to be the closest to a practical solution, affordable health care for everyone.

The chart indicates the increase in medical care cost in the US as a percent of GDP. Since 1960, medical costs have increased from about 5% of GDP to more than 18% in 2018. These percentages include “discounts” offered to insurance companies and Medicare.

The impact of medical costs on a family vary widely. For families with health insurance partly or fully funded by an employer, the costs are relatively low. Yet, even with subsidies from employers, for most every family medical costs have increased faster than family income.

Until the Affordable Care Act passed under the Obama administration, families which did not have subsidized insurance, faced premiums that could be breathtakingly high, especially for those over age 50. In addition, many who had any one of a range of “pre-existing” condition often were unable to secure any coverage for the pre-existing condition.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, made considerable progress in filling the “unaffordable insurance hole” in the societal safety net and for getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. While Obamacare included some coverage gaps, in part to ensure passage in Congress, the AFA did significantly reduce the number of people without medical insurance.

For example, immediately prior to AFA coverage taking effect, about 18% of the US population was uninsured. That percentage continued to drop through 2016:Q4. Immediately upon taking office in 2017:Q1, the Trump administration repealed many features of the AFA.

The Trump administration has continued to eliminate features, including many insurance exchanges, through which uninsured people could at least buy some coverage. The result of Trump’s policies has been a sharp uptick in the number of uninsured. While the chart stops at 2018, the latest projection for 2020 is 45-50 million people in the US will be uninsured.

Opposition to broader insurance coverage seems to focus on two issues: (i) potential elimination of the option to buy additional private insurance; (ii) additional taxpayer cost with expanded coverage for everyone. Both issues are solvable, if opponents will listen.

A Medicare-for-All (MFA) type coverage does not preclude availability of private insurance that would offer an additional level of service or benefits. In some metro areas, selected medical practices offer what is promoted as “concierge service,” ensuring quick access to physicians and more private facilities for many procedures.

While the initial cost for a MFA program could be somewhat higher as people formerly uninsured begin to address issues, longer term the cost could be less. Much of the cost savings could be from eliminating “unproductive” costs. While estimates vary because of different assumptions, overhead costs for Medicare appear to be about 50% less than overhead costs for private insurance. (NYT article)

Currently hospital costs and therefore healthcare insurance premiums include some amount for emergency room visits by the uninsured and those without financial resources. ER visits are far more expensive than office calls. In addition, people who have no insurance often wait until an illness or situation becomes extreme before visiting ER, thereby increasing the cost of treatment.

Opponents to Medicare-for-All should think about medical cost in the same way they think about maintenance on their personal vehicle. Routine maintenance, such as changing oil regularly, is much less expensive than doing no maintenance and eventually replacing the engine. In many ways, the human body operates much your car’s engine; preventive maintenance is much less expensive.

Getting Congress to agree to some form of Medicare-for-All should be much easier following the United States’ experience with the coronavirus. There has not been an event in most everyone’s lifetime that has demonstrated the importance of medical care for all citizens. Recent estimates indicate those without insurance infected with COVID-19 will face medical bills of $50,000-$75,000. Even those with insurance could face medical bills of $25,000 or more.

For those who still think the US cannot afford such coverage, the chart lists healthcare costs per capita by country. Note the cost per capita for highly developed countries. The cost in the US is 75% HIGHER than Germany, the next most expensive country. OK, if you’re still concerned these countries don’t offer the same level of care as the US, then buy the additional-cost option.

Addressing the Naysayers. Any effort to implement a Medicare-for-All type system will be met with vigorous opposition from the right. Following are some likely questions as well as suggested answers. I recognize no answer, however logical and supported by facts, will satisfy the hard right. But given how so many people have been affected by COVID-19 so far, and how many are likely to be affected in the coming months, the voice of the naysayers may be heard less and less, especially when facts are presented to support a Medicare-for-All type system.

Comment #1: The US has the best healthcare system in the world. Don’t mess with it! Leave it alone.

Response #1: Let’s look at the expected lifespan in the US compared to other countries. The US ranks 47th behind such countries as Sweden, Germany, China, Taiwan, France, Korea, Canada, UK, Costa Rica, French Guiana and a host of other countries and ranks just one ahead of Cuba. If the US has such a great healthcare system, why does it rank 47th?

Comment #2: Those countries don’t have as many immigrants as the US. Those immigrants are what’s causing the problem here.

Response #2: Take a look at life expectancy among whites, blacks and Hispanics. Whites have the longest life expectancy but the others are not bringing the US total down by much. You also realize that life expectancy in the US declined under the Trump administration, don’t you? The decline was the first since WWII.

Comment #3: Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? There are lots of slackards out there who don’t pay income taxes. Paying for their medical care is not fair to me.

Response #3: First, anyone who has worked, whether or not they pay income tax, contributes to funding Medicare. In addition, the vast majority of Medicare recipients paid while working and continue to pay a monthly premium in retirement.

Comment #4: Medicare-for-All will create another inefficient government bureaucracy. The private sector is always more efficient. Why waste my hard-earned dollars?

Response #4: The bureaucracy supporting Medicare already exists. Plus, overhead for Medicare is substantially less than for private insurance. While there are different estimates for overhead, there is almost universal agreement that overhead costs for Medicare are substantially less than for private insurance. Most estimates are savings for Medicare of 50% or more. Medicare is more efficient at administering care than private companies. Why should people have to pay 2x the administrative costs for private insurance as they do for Medicare?

Comment #5: How are the doctors going to make any money? Medicare screws them on pricing.

Response #5: One adjustment with Medicare-for-All might be to weight payment to doctors more toward prevention rather than procedures. The change should also generate cost savings. In addition, if necessary, fees to doctors could be increased. The area needs further analysis.

SUMMARY: Some form of “Medicare-for-All” with an option for additional-cost coverage seems an ideal solution to help us address “we gotta get out of this (healthcare quagmire)  place.”  Obviously there are some issues to be worked out in order to implement a Medicare-for-All type program. However, most of the issues have been solved with existing Medicare programs and the Affordable Care Act prior to the Trump administration cuts.

Enough discussion for now about a practical solution to addressing healthcare costs. Likely more later.

 

#324 Why Charter Schools Should Be Eliminated: Extra Cost to Taxpayers and More (1of2)

16 Saturday Feb 2019

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ 1 Comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Many entries are formatted as conversations. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. A major step toward achieving that goal would be prohibiting publicly funded charter schools…and publicly funded vouchers for private schools.

So what’s the problem with charter schools?  Why insist on publicly run schools? The private sector always accomplishes a task more efficiently and effectively than the public sector. Besides public education is broken and needs to be fixed. More support for public schools sounds like more socialism. Well, supporters of charter schools, if public education is socialism, then what would you call public support of private institutions through tax breaks and lower tax rates…try calling it by its real name, “welfare for the wealthy.”

First, most everyone agrees certain aspects of public education need to be fixed. But maybe what needs to be fixed is not what advocates of more publicly funded charter schools claim needs to be fixed.

Public education per se is not the problem. What makes any school a good educational institution, whether public or private, is not the source of funding, not the school building, not how much money is spent on fancy support materials, not how good the sports team are…and a host of often discussed other “nice-to-have” items. What makes a good educational institution is commitment by all involved – students, faculty, parents and community. Education truly requires a community effort.

Look at schools where students get a great education and you will find a community supporting that educational institution. I agree that families which opt for charter schools may be more committed to education than other families. But why do we…again the proverbial ‘societal we’…allow communities to “evolve” – maybe “dissolve” is more appropriate characterization – to a point where there is a lack of commitment to public education?

Charter schools do not help a community rebuild its commitment to quality education for all students. In fact, charter schools do just the opposite. Charter schools further erode a community’s commitment to quality education for all by diverting mental support and tax-dollar support to privately run schools.

The idea of having a “specialized school” or certain education track is a good one. Both can be accomplished within the public school system. While the term might not be politically correct today, I was part of a group that for four years of high school had all “accelerated classes,” other than physical education.   As far as I know, the “accelerated” classes were based strictly on merit and anyone meeting the academic requirements was eligible.

New York City and other urban areas have long had schools specializing in certain academic fields. These schools have been open to all students in the system who met certain criteria.  Thus, if a community wanted a more-specialized “charter-like” school, there’s no reason why such a school could not be created within the exiting school system – many systems have “magnet” schools that operate within the larger public system.

A key aspect of charter schools not often discussed is the lack of scrutiny. Charter schools receive public funds, yet are not subject to the same oversight as public schools. Why? The answer is simple…but the answer should not be accepted by taxpayers. The lack of scrutiny is by the design of ownership groups of charter schools. The lack of scrutiny allows charter-school owners to avoid many of the rules required of public schools.

The theme of the charter-school owners? Just give us public money but don’t ask how we spend it. Stating the incredibly obvious, charter schools are another version of efforts by the political far right to privatize major portions of the government and with privatization, minimize, if not eliminate public scrutiny.

A second key aspect of charter schools not often discussed is the true cost. Proponents of charter schools may claim the cost for operating a charter school is the same or less than a public school. The “proof” of the same-as or lower-cost claim is that charter schools receive only a certain amount from the state and do not charge tuition. But do charter schools really cost less?

Let’s look at some costs. A very high percentage of the cost of education is fixed, or semi-fixed. Fixed/semi-fixed costs do not vary with changes in volume. As an example, think of your own house. Fixed costs for the house are the mortgage payment, taxes, maintenance, utilities and similar expenses.

Say there are two parents and three children living in the house. Then one child heads off to college. Now there’s an extra bedroom not being used. So does the family just pack up and move to a smaller house?

No, the family stays in the house. And the mortgage payment is the same; the major maintenance expenses are the same; the cost for heat, electricity, water, internet is the just about the same whether five people or four people live in the house. If you were calculating the cost per person to live in the house, the cost per person would be lower for five people compared to four people. While some other costs do vary with the number of people – food, e.g., — the overall cost per person in higher for four people than for five.

The same cost structure applies in education. What are primary fixed costs in education – teachers’ salaries, administrative overhead, building maintenance, utilities, much of the food-service staff and some other items. Thus, if say 20-25% of the students of a public school transfer to a charter school (think of the one child going off to college), most of the expenses for the public school remain the same.

But how are public schools funded? While the formula can vary by state or locale, many public schools are funded based on a payment per student. So if students leave for charter schools, the payment to the public school is reduced because of fewer students. The money follows the students so money that was formerly paid to public school is diverted to a charter school.  While the number of students in the public school has declined, the costs for educating students did not decline as much as the loss of funding to the charter school.

So how is the loss of funding made up? Where does the extra money come from? Two sources: (i) taxpayers, state and/or local, who end up having to increase the amount of funding per student for public schools…and by default also charter schools; (ii) cutbacks of expenses at the school level. Students end up getting short-changed as less money is available to spend for supplies, extracurricular activities, teachers’ aides, and maintenance. As maintenance is deferred over time, the building and infrastructure deteriorate. Eventually repairs and/or building a new facility end up costing even more than the deferred maintenance…another hit to taxpayers.

I did a rough calculation about the increased cost to taxpayers of charter schools. The estimates need to be refined with more analysis. Say 25% of the students transferred from public schools to publicly funded charter schools.  Under this scenario, the cost per student for taxpayers would not go down, as some proponents of charter schools claim; the cost per student would not remain the same as other proponents claim; the cost per student would increase 20-25%.

Where is the added cost coming from? With the creation of charter schools, a parallel overhead cost system is also created. Rather than one “superintendent”, there are now two – one for public schools and one for charter schools. Rather than one principal for a given school, there are now two because a second school was added. Rather than one building, there are now two. In addition, there are more teachers.

How does the public school manage with lower funding? The number of teachers for core topics remains about the same. What the public schools end up eliminating are teachers for what some people label as “non-essential” topics – art, music, Phys Ed…and oh, yes, those nurses and other health-care workers in the school system.

What is the motive behind charter schools? Why support a system that costs taxpayers more when there are no demonstrable benefits? Yes, some charter schools are more successful at increasing graduation rates.  But many…and possibly more…are not.

With these uneven statistics, why not tweak the public school system to provide more specialized schools as many urban areas have for decades? The underlying reasons why charter schools are supported? (Stay tuned. More to come.)

#292 Federally Funded Elections. Benefits and Framework to Start

29 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date.

Note: most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters (see link at top of page). You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC.  Conversation began Entry #289.

092615_2031_Characters2.jpgGreenie:  “Jordan, that’s quite a list of ideas about how to make America great again.  We’ve got to call this project something else but let’s not spend time on that now.  Which item on the list seems like a good place to start?”

JC:  “To me the idea of Federally funded elections seems feasible.  Don’t a bunch of other countries…maybe most other countries…fund elections?  So why can’t the US?”

Jordan:  “Alright, let’s think about what has to happen to make Federal funding a reality.”

Greenie:  “For sure Congress needs to pass some type of law, then appropriate the funds.”

092615_2031_Characters1.jpgJC:  “I’m no legal scholar…and no comments please…but it does seem as if there aren’t any real legal barriers.  Political barriers, yes, but not legal barriers.”

Greenie:  “What about the Citizens United case?  Does a law authorizing Federally funded elections trump the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United?”

Jordan:  “Any law mandating only Federal funding for Federal elections likely will be challenged in court and then head back to SCOTUS.  However, there doesn’t seem to be any glaring reason why a Federal funding law wouldn’t be upheld…thereby overriding the Citizens United ruling.  I just don’t see how such a law would affect 1st Amendment rights.  But like you, JC, I’m no Constitutional law scholar.”

House of RepsJC:  “Let’s say there’s no major legal issue.  Then how should Federal funds be allocated to the candidates?”

Greenie:  “There’s already a formula for allocation.  Maybe neither the most logical nor the most fair but one that’s clearly defined – the Electoral College.”

Jordan:  “Seems like a good place to start.  Assume that Congress allocated $10/person for federal elections.  The current US population is what 330 to 340 million?  Call it 340 million, so that means $3.4 billion is available to help fund federal elections.”

Greenie:  “Is that for presidential elections or off-year elections too?  Seems as if off-year elections should have a different number.”

JC:  “What about Senate races?  Senators are elected every six years, House members every two years.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Good points.  Try this.  Presidential elections get the full $10/head funding.  Off-year elections get $5/head allocated.”

Greenie:  “So in a presidential election, the presidential candidates would get $1.7 billion and the House and Senate candidates would split $1.7 billion, right?”

Jordan:  “For the Congressional seats, I think we need to give candidates for the Senate more money that candidates for the House.  Other than a few low-population states, Senators have to cover a lot more territory than House members.  What if we gave the Senatorial candidates 2x the House candidates?”

Math ClassJC:  “Let me try the math.  If I remember Ester’s Algebra class, that would be 200X+435X=$1,700,000,000.  Using my hand-dandy phone, x equals almost $2.7 million.  So Senate races get about $5.4 million and House races about $2.7 million.”

Greenie:  “The numbers for Senate races seem low.  Maybe Senators should get 3x.”

JC:  “Did we decide if the amount of money was for each race or each legitimate candidate?”

Greenie:  “While we’re at it, what about funding primaries?  What about 3rd-party candidates?”

Jordan:  “We didn’t decide.  Assume the $10/head is for each candidate in the general election.  So the cost is now $20/head…plus the primaries.”

Greenie:  “I know I recommended using the Electoral College but there might be an easier approach.  Candidates for the House get say $5/head for everyone in their district.  Senators would get $5/head for everyone in the state.  Presidential candidates would get $5/head for everyone in the US.”

JC:  “What about the primaries?”

Greenie:  “Give each candidate ½ the amount of the general election — $2.50/head per candidate.  Whatever the general election number is, cut it in half for the primaries.”

SignatureJC:  “3rd-party candidates?”

Greenie:  “If the candidate can get signatures for x% of the registered voters…it has to be a reasonable percentage…then the 3rd-party candidate is entitled to the same funds.”

JC:  “Isn’t this idea getting awfully expensive?  We might be pushing $10 billion, maybe more.”

Federal BudgetGreenie:  “Now, JC, I mean really.  What’s a few billion in a trillion-dollar Federal budget – a rounding error?  I agree the approach seems expensive until you begin to add up all the hidden costs with today’s approach to funding elections…and all the backroom deals connected to the funding.”

Jordan:  “Point well taken, Greenie.  Part of the selling job for this idea will be to have a credible 3rd-party estimate the current cost of elections, including all the dark money.”

JC:  “Cost aside…and I agree even though it seems like a lot of money, the amount is really a rounding error…what I like about the approach is forcing candidates to be more judicious with their spending.”

occupations_lawyerGreenie:  “Because funds will be limited, the approach will likely also force candidates to get out on the campaign trail and meet the voters.  Maybe we’ll get fewer negative ad blitzes and more time on the campaign trail.”

JC:  “You think this approach will eliminate lobbyists?”

Jordan:  “Probably not.  I don’t have a problem with lobbyists per se.  Some are actually very helpful.  What seems to set people off is how certain Congressman force lobbyists into a pay-to-play game.”

gangster-cartoon-clip-art-540pxGreenie:  “Oh, you mean like South Carolina’s Mick Mulvaney?  What chutzpah.  He bragged to a group of bankers that before he became part of the Trump Administration, he only talked to lobbyists who paid him.  Wonder if he stopped the practice when he became director of OMB and consumer protection bureau for Trump?  Pardon me — that seems like a rhetorical question.”

JC:  “I think the Revenge Revolution forced out most of the Mulvaney-like extortionists.  A new approach to funding Federal elections should keep too many new ones from popping up…at least for a while.”

Jordan:  “Alright, we seem to have the framework for Federal funding of Federal elections.  Obviously the plan needs a lot more refining, but the idea seems feasible.”

Greenie:  “Agreed.  And if you both agree, I need a break.”

(Continued)