Category Archives: Gov’t Policy

#369 Climate Change. Who’s Right about the Cause? Doesn’t Matter.

02 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, 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:

ENTRY #369 BEGINS.  Recently, a longtime colleague sent an article from a local paper about a series of speeches he’s been giving focused on electric transportation and climate change. The article noted his position about the increase in the earth’s average temperature was due to natural causes, and not due to actions by humans, such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.

In the speeches, he argued because the change in temperature was due to natural causes, society should continue to burn coal, gasoline, natural gas, etc. He stated the CO2 generated from the burning would not be harmful to the environment and, in fact, could be could be helpful – e.g., more CO2 could increase agricultural production.

While I agree that the average temperature of the earth and CO2 ppm have varied over time due to natural causes, the changes have occurred very, very slowly, often taking hundreds if not thousands or even tens of thousands of years. In addition, in periods with very high concentration of CO2, all evidence suggests that humans didn’t exist.

I’m a big supporter of science-based decisions. However, the science doesn’t matter about the cause of climate change. What matters is how to mitigate the potential damage associated with the rapid increase in the earth’s temperature.

You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that if the earth’s average temperature continues to rise more polar ice will melt. Actually, a 3rd grader can understand the problem. What happens when all the ice melts? Oceans will rise. (Much of the ice is on land.)

Let’s say the ocean level increases 12-18” inches over the next 50-100 years, which is not an unreasonable estimate. Well, that amount of increase in ocean levels would be goodbye to much of Florida as well as goodbye to many coastal cities in the US and around the world.

In addition to the rising seas and the millions of people displaced, we are likely to see oceans as a less productive food source. There would also be a major disruption to agricultural production since many crops would not grow in the current location. The transition in agriculture could result in major shortages of food for years, possibly decades.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, the risk of doing nothing could be catastrophic. So let’s not get our panties in a wad about who’s right or wrong.  Instead, let’s figure out what it takes to mitigate the effects of higher temperatures and capitalize on any opportunities.

An obvious action that can start now is to accelerate the elimination of fossil fuels. And why not? Why not add solar panels to roofs? Add solar panels even in areas where the sun shines say only 50% of the days per year. While the electricity generated in the 50% areas won’t match electricity generated in Arizona, the cumulative effect of all houses in the 50%-sunny area would be an enormous amount of electricity over time.

Why not reduce the number of animals raised for meat? Cows are great for hamburger but they’re also a methane machine. Increased use of plant-based “meats” would have a positive impact.

My colleague was trained as a nuclear engineer. Despite his belief the increase in earth’s temperature is the result of natural causes, he is an advocate of migrating from using fossil fuels to nuclear power to generate electricity.

I’ll not argue the burn-fossil-fuel-and-switch-to-nuclear logic and agree with using more nuclear fuel as long as the industry chooses the least damaging and easiest to manage nuclear fuel. Based on very limited research I think that thorium would be a better choice than uranium, although I’m not a hundred percent sure.

Many other changes can be made to reduce CO2 emissions. As many of us are experiencing in the auto industry’s migration to electric-powered vehicles, the change can be challenging but also exciting fun. The changes are very likely to spawn a plethora of new technologies and create many new jobs.

The first step in this journey, however, is to have both sides quit pointing fingers about who’s right and who’s wrong. Folks, it does not matter. The consequences of continuing to do nothing are bad and worse. Consequences are the issue. Forget about who’s correct about the cause.

And, oh, what if the average temperature starts to fall in the future because of natural causes? Mmm, what has been lost by all the efforts to reduce CO2 ppm?? Absolutely nothing, nada, zero. In fact, the earth will be have cleaner air, more productive citizens and some new jobs. Not a bad thing to have happen.

So, to all the so-called “climate-change deniers” and to all the so-called “climate-change extremists”, let’s shake hands, go grab a coffee and start working on solutions, together. Something productive might get accomplished.

#367 Prescription? Conscription for All. Steps to Implementation. (Part 2)

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, 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.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

ENTRY #367 BEGINS.  Blog entry #366 proposed reinstituting conscription and expanding it to include women.  Doing so makes sense only if those “conscripted” can be productive and the output benefit many US citizens.

If implemented, the goals of conscription would be:

  1. Improve understanding with a broader swath of the population how to:
    • Work in teams
    • Work with people who have different skills
    • Work with people from different socio-economic backgrounds
  2. Provide reasonably skilled labor for major government projects, such as rebuilding infrastructure. Think of the 1930s and how the WPA was used for building roads, dams, and other infrastructure throughout the United States.
  3. Create a sense of having served, and being proud of having served the country. Less than 1% of citizens currently serve in the military. In addition, of those who volunteer for the military, most are from families whose members have also served. The current military is supported by a very narrow segment of the population. The current enlistment model is likely unsustainable over time.
  4. Create skills that allow those discharged to find meaningful employment in the private or public sectors.

Key components of a broad-based conscription program would include:

  1. Everyone subjected to conscription at age 18.
  2. Minimal exemptions from serving.
  3. Being able to serve other than in the military. Individuals would have the option to select the military or other agency. If after joining the military, the individual could not meet the physical requirements, the individual would then transfer to a non-military assignment.
  4. Assignments would be throughout the United States, not just near the individual’s hometown.
  5. Assignments outside the US would be available for certain categories.
  6. Basic training would be required for everyone, even those not serving in the military. For anyone who has served in the military, basic training is a memorable experience. For those who have never lived away from home, basic training is an opportunity to begin to understand how the world operates.  The non-military basic training would not be as intense as the military but would have many of the same components: (i) being trained with people of disparate backgrounds; (ii) living in “barracks” for a certain period, including some KP. Total basic training for non-military would be maybe 8 weeks. Advanced training would vary by general assignment but likely not exceed 8 weeks. Depending on assignment, likely additional OJT.
  7. Meaningful tasks. During the time in service, members should be taught a skill that can be used in a meaningful job as well as a skill that can be transferred to the private or public sector once discharged.
  8. Uniform for all serving. While the uniform for non-military assignments would be different from the various military uniforms, requiring a uniform during working hours would help to: (i) designate who is serving their country; (ii) reinforce to the participant that he or she is a member of a team.

US Departments/Agencies where trainees could work include:

  1. Defense – optional. However, if DOD does not meet its recruiting quotas by branch, then some trainees could be assigned to help meet quotas.
  2. Interior.  Participants would work in national parks, for example.
  3. EPA.  Monitor pollution in and sources of pollution in lakes, rivers, air.
  4. Education. Could work at federal facilities – Native American schools, e.g., state facilities – academic institution, or local – neighborhood school. Dep’t of Education would be overall coordinator and manage selection of location.

Time Required to Serve. Two (2) years active service plus four (4) years reserve duty. Reserve would allow government to recall key individuals in critical situations.

Reenlistment. Participant could re-up for an additional two years, including seeking a higher-level position.

Years of Credited Service. Number of years would transfer with the individual if he or she transitioned to a government job, whether federal, state or local level.

Options of When to Serve. All individuals would be expected to begin service not later than age 23. Participant could join immediately after high school, at age 18 to 19. Program would include option to defer service until after college, with a maximum deferral of five years.

Exclusions from Serving. Minimal reasons for not serving.  Bone spurs would not qualify for exclusion. Few would be categorized as “4F.” Even those with physical handicaps would be expected to serve, unless the level of physical handicap was deemed extreme. Every effort, for example, would be made to include people using wheelchairs. For those who are handicapped there might be different level of training and jobs might be somewhat different. Nonetheless, every effort would be made to include them in the “corps.”

Autism Spectrum. To the extent possible all but the most extreme on the autism spectrum would be expected to serve in some capacity. Like those with physical disabilities, training routine and the type of job might be different.

While some might argue against including people with special needs, the service requirement would: (i) help train the individual with some transferable job skills; (ii) help reduce the stigma often associated with some type of perceived disability; (iii) help reduce the long-term cost of care since many will be employed following service and become taxpayers.

Non-Citizens in the US. Would be eligible to serve. Serving would be a path to US citizenship.

While the devil is in the details for large-scale projects, much of the framework to implement a conscription program is already in place. The US military has systems and procedures that could be modified. In addition, a “conscription-for-all” program could be implemented in phases, allowing inevitable kinks to be worked out before the program is expanded to everyone turning age 18.

An argument can be made that with such a low unemployment rate, a “conscription-for-all” program would make finding employees more difficult.  Well, if you look behind the numbers of the unemployment rate, its not as rosy as what the White House promotes.  Many counted as “employed” are in fact workers with low-paying, part-time jobs.

In addition, the economy is not going to grow forever.  There will be another recession, possibly depression. While the likelihood of a depression is the topic for another blog entry, there is ample historical evidence that supports a sharp economic downturn following a period of rapid concentration of wealth and “bubbles” in the financial markets.  Both conditions exist today.

Another reason to support “conscription for all” is to help mitigate the impact of the coming “technology tsunami.”  The tech tsunami will cause a major disruption to the workforce.  For more about the technology tsunami and the likely impact, download Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement.

Now, how to get the House and Senate to pass a bill to expand conscription.

#366 — Prescription? Conscription for All. (Part 1)

12 Sunday Jan 2020

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

≈ 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, 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.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

Start of Entry #366.  With the new year, I decided to try, emphasis on try, and get back to outlining practical solutions to complex societal problems. Ideally all of the topics in the coming blog entries will be related to factors that could contribute to the 5th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution.

Some topics will be more obviously linked to the projected revolution; some less so. Doubtless, there will be entries that are more a reaction to some recent event inside the Beltway, or some inane comment or action by Trump. However, one of my resolutions for 2020 is to keep “reactionary” entries to a minimum, or at least put the entries in a broader context.

A societal issue that seems to generate little discussion but one that has long-term implications for a stable US democracy is how to staff the military. In a previous entry (#293), I recommended conscription be reinstituted in the US. I also recommended that satisfying requirements of conscription could be expanded beyond service in the military. One could satisfy requirements by serving in any number of government agencies – Federal, state, local – as well as serving in certain jobs outside the US – embassies, e.g.

The general benefits of conscription include: (i) exposing “draftees” to jobs, people and activities they would likely never experience otherwise; (ii) providing an excellent way to train people for work in the private sector. Many of the jobs skills learned while serving, especially non-military assignments, would have direct applicability in the private sector; (iii) helping people understand how to build a highly functioning team from a group of individuals with disparate backgrounds. Such an understanding should help reduce the polarization that continues to worsen in this country; (iv) maybe the most important, allowing people to state rightfully and proudly they served their country.  Under the proposed conscription system, let’s change the term “draftee” to “patriot.”

Conscription would help overcome what is a growing problem for the military – a very narrow segment of the population volunteers to serve. According to an article in the New York Times (20 01 11 NYT Makeup of Military Recruits), less than 1% of the US population serves in the military. Further, nearly 80% of the current recruits come from families where someone has served, and 30% of the recruits come from families where one or both parents have served in the military.

The current volunteer system limits the personality profiles of people in the military. While some might find this comforting, my experience has been limiting personality types in a group can result in distorted thinking and/or distorted behavior. Expanding the type/personality profiles of individuals serving in the military can have a moderating influence on “group think” behavior. Such moderation seems especially important for members participating in units subjected to extreme training and precarious assignments – special forces and Navy SEALs e.g. Members of these units may find having a moderating force in the ranks would help mitigate the difficulty in transitioning to civilian life.

Admittedly, the number of former special forces personnel I’ve worked with in say the last ten years is limited. However the actions of each suggest a problem in the transition to civilian life. Of the four (4) in various special-forces units, one was a convicted felon, two were extortionists, and one was a seemingly “normal” individual but who also maintained a significant cache of weapons, including several .50 caliber rifles. Folks, .50 caliber rifles are not for hunting. They’re for armed warfare.

The military seems to be trying to address the most egregious misbehavior of personnel in special forces. Recent examples include the Navy’s conviction of Edward Gallagher, a high-ranking NCO SEAL, and the Army’s refusal to restore a Special Forces tab for Major Mathew Golsteyn, who had been accused of killing an unarmed Afghan suspected of bomb making.

Unfortunately, the efforts by the military have been thwarted by Trump. Trump, who has zero military experience and apparently no appreciation of the need for discipline within the system, pardoned both men and hailed them as true “warriors,” thereby undermining the military justice system.

Whereas reinstituting conscription won’t necessarily stop egregious, even criminal behavior by those in special forces, it will increase the appreciation among a wide swath of citizens, including those inside the Beltway, of what is required to operate a military that can be model of integrity for other countries worldwide. A credible, well-disciplined military with proper, separate oversight is also critical to a functioning democracy.

For “patriots” who serve in government organizations other than the military, the organizations will benefit by being exposed to a workforce with fresh ideas and skills that should be especially useful as more technology is integrated into these organizations. The “patriots,” in many respects, will be like interns in the private sector. Having “patriots” as workers allows managers of the government organization an opportunity to evaluate performance and then potentially recruit the higher performing individuals for employment following discharge.

Reinstituting conscription needs to be fair and equitable. Some ideas in the next entry.

 

#340 Abbott Awards Costello the Presidential Medal of Freedom

23 Sunday Jun 2019

Posted by in Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, 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 #332.  

Begin Entry #340.  Somewhat buried in this past week’s news was that Bud Abbott awarded Lou Costello the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Well, okay, it wasn’t really Abbott and Costello, but it might as well have been.

The actual players were Donald Trump and Arthur Laffer. If you don’t follow the players in the field of economics, you might not recognize the name Laffer. In the mid-1970s, Arthur Laffer, then working in the Nixon/Ford Administration, but previously a member of the faculty at University of Chicago, outlined for Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney (the same two as in the Bush 43 administration) a curve to illustrate the theory that government revenues could be maximized at certain marginal tax rates.

According to Laffer, too high a marginal income tax rate would be a disincentive for people to work and/or invest and tax revenues would fall. If the margin tax rate were too high, then lowering the tax rate would result in the economy expanding with overall tax revenues increasing despite the lower maximum rate.

The Laffer Theory, commonly referenced as the Laffer Curve, was cited as justification for large cuts in tax rates under Presidents Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump. In fairness to Laffer, his theory, which had been discussed earlier by other economists, could be true where a country had exceptionally high tax rates – although too high a tax rate has never been defined – and there was no compelling societal need justifying the higher rates.

Laffer’s Theory should also be considered the foundation for what is known as “trickle-down economics.” However logical Laffer’s theory and “trickle-down economics” might seem, to my knowledge there is no empirical evidence demonstrating the theory is correct.

In the 1950s, for example, maximum marginal income tax rates in the US were 70%. Yet during the 1950’s the labor-force participation rate was very high and the economy was strong. One might argue – and I think fairly – that the very high marginal tax rates were justified by a societal need. The US needed to pay down some of the enormous debt the US incurred during WWII.

More recent tests of Laffer’s theory include the Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump Administrations. What happened to government revenues when the Laffer Curve was used to justify lowering income tax rates in each of those administrations? The economy grew some but income taxes remitted to the Federal government never increased enough to offset the rate cuts. The result was a sharp increase in the Federal debt, both nominally and as a percent of GDP.

The Laffer Theory has been tried in other venues. In 2012 the Republican governor of the State of Kansas, to whom Laffer was an advisor, convinced the legislators to reduce maximum marginal tax rates. The project result, according to Governor Brownback, would be a rapidly growing economy and enough additional revenue to the state to offset the reduced tax rates.

What happened was just the opposite. Like the experience of the Federal government, tax revenues in Kansas plunged. The difference between the State of Kansas and the Federal government is a critical one. Unlike Washington, the State of Kansas is constitutionally required to balance its budget and does not have a Treasury Department that can print money. The only alternative for Kansas was to raise taxes and substantially cut expenditures in such critical areas as education and infrastructure.

Bush 41 called “trickle-down economics” that emanated from the Laffer Curve, “voodoo economics.” The voodoo economics label seems to be widely shared among most well-respected economists, with more than 95% of professional economists rejecting the Laffer Theory.

So why did Laffer receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom? The president has wide discretion in awarding the medal. A recent recipient, for example, was the golfer Tiger Woods.

What struck me as comical was the Administration’s justification for selecting Laffer. The White House press release indicated Arthur Laffer was “…one of the most influential economists in American history.” (Maybe true but “influential” does not equate necessarily to being correct.) Adding to the comedy of the press release were remarks by Trump, who claimed to have studied Arthur Laffer’s theory for many years.

Seriously? Studied for many years? Trump is anything but a student. He’s repeatedly demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of basics taught in economics 101. While the examples are numerous, a couple of recent economic headscratchers include his claim that tariffs are paid by the country of origin – i.e., tariffs on goods shipped from China are paid by the Chinese. No, Donald, the tariffs are paid by the residents of the receiving country. The receiving country is called the United States and the tariffs are effectively a tax on consumers.

Another head-scratching idea is that world trade must be a zero-sum game; therefore, the US should work toward having a trade surplus with most all, if not all, countries. If that were true, then nearly every country worldwide would make and consume its own products. If I’m not mistaken, Trump’s theory went out millennia ago.   Maybe Trump should study more about such people as say, Marco Polo. Somehow I think Marco Polo was in the international trading business.

What about Trump’s approach to increase US GDP over the long term? Roughly 2/3 of US GDP is driven by consumer consumption. If you don’t increase the number of consumers and/or increase consumption per capita, then GDP is not going to grow and it will gradually decline. As the population ages, consumption per capita decreases and the economy can stall or start to slide — just look at what happened to the Japanese economy beginning in the 1990’s. In the US, the declining birthrate among native-born citizens will result in lower potential GDP growth unless some fundamental changes are made.

One change to help ensure sustained economic growth could be to increase the pool of younger consumers. How does the US expand the pool? The government can’t force families to have more babies. So what about more Immigrants? Wouldn’t more immigrants help offset the declining birth rate?

According to the Trump Administration, the US should not allow more immigrants, especially those entering without visas. Moreover, according to Trump, even the number of legal immigrants should be reduced sharply.

Mmm, this economics game is not so simple. Maybe Trump should have attended economics class more often. Economics seems something like a teeter-totter. Somehow the two sides need to be balanced for the system to work.

What’s the takeaway from this blog entry? Most everyone, well most everyone except Trump’s hardcore supporters, acknowledges Trump is uneducated about many subjects and his decisions are often arbitrary and conflicting.

Maybe the purpose of this entry is allowing me – and I hope some of you – to vent frustration and anger at Trump with his gang of incompetents and enablers. For many years, I’ve studied economics and had jobs where applying economic theory was a key part of a critical decision. In many of those decisions, the financial well-being of numerous families was affected. In my view, and one seemingly shared by many others, Trump’s decisions about lowering income tax rates mostly for the wealthy, efforts to influence the Federal Reserve, restructuring immigration policy could harm significantly the potential for sustained economic growth in the US.

Now, I hope I’ve made the case for why I cringed when Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to someone like Arthur Laffer. I cringed not because of Laffer. He had no hand in this decision. I cringed at the thought of what’s going to be the next incredibly stupid decision made by Trump that will have lasting negative consequences for US citizens.

We should all be concerned, regardless of political party. As for Abbott and Costello, my apologies to them for being drawn into the discussion. Unlike the Trump Administration, even Abbott and Costello figured out who was on first.

Post Entry Update: In the week following publishing Entry #340, Eli Broad (rhymes with road), a multi-billionaire, published an Op-Ed piece in the NYT outlining why taxes on the very wealthy should be raised.  Unlike Trump, Broad views a higher-tax rate for the wealthy as necessary to help begin eliminating the growing economic inequities in the US.  Link to comments, 19 06 26 NYT Eli Broad OpEd re Asking to Raise His Taxes.

Comments welcome, as always. Thanks for your time.

 

 

 

#336 Policies to Address Tech Tsunami. Socialism? No. National Security.

19 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in Economics, Gov't Policy, Tech Tsunami

≈ 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.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.

This entry is a “wrap” to the technology tsunami series, at least for a while.  The format for this entry is conversational.  The character, Sandy (comments in quotes) is an ardent Trump and NRA supporter who has appeared in previous entries.  Like virtually all the characters that appear in this blog, Sandy is patterned after someone I know with very similar characteristics. The entire technology tsunami series, including this entry is available as a eBook. (19 05 19 Tech Tsunami Booklet)

Sandy: “I don’t buy all this BS that some so-called technology tsunami could wreck the US economy. Stuff like that only happens in socialist countries. Look at what happened in Venezuela.”

True that Venezuela was the richest country in South America and then tanked economically. The reason they went into free fall was not becasue of socialism but because of bad economic policies.

“Hold on Bubba.  I’m telling you those kind of economic problems are what happens to all socialist countries. If you don’t believe me look at what happened to the economies of Cuba and to Russia. You know I’m right. Admit it.”

You are right that Cuba and Russia have suffered economically. But in the most diplomatic terms, you’re wrong about why. Let’s not confuse communism, which is more political, with socialism, which is more related to economic policy.

“Communism, socialism. They’re the same thing to me.  I know one thing for sure.  You can’t have all those socialist policies and still have a democracy.”

Like I said, let’s not confuse socialism and communism. There are many countries you might label as being socialist that are democracies. All the Nordic countries, for example, have many government-controlled social programs. Other countries in Europe, including Germany, have some degree of what you’re labeling as socialism. Even Canada. Yet, all those countries are democracies.

“Well, what about Greece? They had all those government programs and they went under. Italy almost went under. Call them what you want.  I’m telling you government programs are what causes these countries to go under.”

OK, then let’s add one more country to the list of countries that almost went under.  In fact, this country has come close to going under twice in the last hundred years. Want to guess which country?

“Probably a trick question. Who?”

The United States. We came within a hair’s breadth of the economy going into free fall in 1932 and 2008.

“I’ll tell you why. Because of the Democrats. They’re the problem. Democrats FDR and Obama were coming into office when the economy tanked. Democrats are always the problem.”

Could you please put away the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh drivel and look at this issue objectively. Bad government policies under the Hoover and Bush 43 administrations created most of the problems. Notice that I said most of the problems, not all. If you want to later, we can discuss which economic policies were the primary causes. But for now, my point is without sound government policies to counteract the coming technology tsunami, the country is likely to be faced with another economic crisis.

“When you say crisis, are you suggesting unemployment could shoot up to 20 to 25% and real wages fall, just like during the Great Depression?”

Yes. If you don’t think technology can have a devastating impact, look at what’s happened to companies and employment in industries where disruptive technology was introduced.

“You mean like the coal industry? I hate to laugh but I understand even the Coal Mining Museum gets some electricity from solar panels on its roof. Anyway, technology and economics have killed the industry. Unemployment in the coal industry is what, maybe only 40-50% of what it was just 25-30 years ago?”

Now you understand why strategic planning and good government policy are so important?  I hope you also have somne appreciation of the risk associated with bad  government policy. Bad policy presents a real risk to the US economy and the country’s future as a democracy.

“Gee, I never looked at government policy quite that way. The real impact of government is not whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. The real impact is whether government makes policies that can sustain the well-being of the country.  And, you know what?  Overturning Roe v. Wade seems far less important than these other issues.”

Sandy, I’m proud of you.  If more people had your attitude, the country could start to make real progress in implementing policies to counteract the coming technology tsunami.

“I think I get it.  What you’re suggesting is not just more government intervention, but government intervention to avoid a economic catastrophe. Really, the need to address the coming tech tsunami is more a national security issue.”

Now, if only the Trump Administration and some key people in Congress would “get it” like Sandy.

#334 Could a Change in Semantics Break the Ideologue Logjam? More about Cost of Preparing for the Tech Tsunami.

05 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in Economics, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ 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.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.

This week’s Entry continues the series about preparing for the upcoming “technology tsunami” that will have a major impact on the US economy.  The series starts Entry #319. 

Arguments against society-wide programs – healthcare, education, climate change – claim that such programs are too expensive. Taxpayers cannot afford these programs.

There is a kernel of truth to that claim. Such programs have considerable start-up costs and the payback is often a few years out. Sometimes the payback is a decade or two later.

Of course, the idea of having delayed payback does not apply when the same “too expensive” group decides to make business or personal Investments. Nor does the logic apply when this group is evaluating the performance of coaches for favorite college or professional sports teams. Why coaches? Surely everyone knows it takes time to build a solid sports team. Give the coach at least five years to perform and demonstrate his or her worth.

More seriously, the question is, “Is society willing to take the risk of not investing in programs that will have a sustained, if delayed, return on investment? As an example of a similar personal-level decision is whether to delay needed maintenance on your house or car. Delaying can result in some immediate cash savings. However, the decision to delay is a two-edge sword. The repairs are needed and by waiting the severity and cost of repairs likely will be much higher. While delaying maintenance may seem to be a savings in the short-term, the decision to delay is not really savings at all, but additional cost. To paraphrase an old TV commercial, pay me now or pay me more later.

How does “pay me now or pay me more later” apply to the education of people who will be displaced by the technology tsunami? Let’s say the cost of educating those displaced averages $25,000 per person, roughly equal to 2 years cost of tuition, books and fees at a community college and even some state universities. In addition to the cost of education, let’s assume those being retrained receive a salary of about $50,000 per year. For the two years, the total cost for retraining would be about $125,000 per person.

The $125,000 cost per person seems extraordinarily high until one calculates the cost of not retraining. What is the cost not to retrain?

Assume the median age of the person being retrained is 45 years old, which means the person has 20 to 25 years left before retirement. Without retraining for the post technology-tsunami world, the person may be unemployable, and therefore, receive assistance for the next 25 years of his or her working career. In addition, the person would receive some form of assistance for another 10 to 15 years after reaching retirement age. Total time not working and receiving assistance…and not paying taxes? A total of 35-40 years.

If the person receives just $10,000 per year assistance, which is on the very low side, the cost of assistance for a person previously employed but now displaced, would be at least $400,000. Thus, the cost of not retraining is more than 3x the cost of 2-year training – tuition, fees, books and salary of $50,000 per year. Oops, we’re not finished. The person on assistance and not employed, would also not pay income taxes as well no withholding for FICA and no withholding for Medicare.

So which is smarter? Pay now to retrain the person displaced by the technology tsunami or pay more than 3x as much later (constant dollars) to have the person on assistance his or her entire life and never again paying income taxes or contributing to the cost of Social Security or Medicare?

The ROI to retrain workers is positive for workers in their 50’s and even early 60’s when all the costs are included. In addition to society saving money by retraining workers, having an employed workforce with more disposable income will increase consumer consumption, increase overall GDP and with some tweaks, to the tax structure, increase family wealth.

Despite the obvious benefits, for some reason “return on investment” does not yet seem to be part of most discussions about broad social programs, whether the discussion in Washington or in many state capitals. I am always personally baffled why Republicans focus on immediate cost and ignore “return on investment” logic for social programs, yet use the very same ROI logic for personal and/or business investment decisions. Guys, voters are not completely stupid. ROI is a concept that voters can understand.

To break the ideologue logjam, maybe such programs need to be positioned with Republicans as “business Investments” and not “social programs.” To mollify Republican critics of these programs, maybe recipients of the proposed technology-tsunami education program should be required to pay a minimum tax of say 1.0% of gross income per year for up to 10 years following completion of the retraining. The minimum tax would allow Republicans to claim assistance recipients have some “skin in the game.”

Democrats would do well to position technology-tsunami retraining, the Green New Deal, Medicare for all and other ideas, not as social programs, and especially not as “socialist programs,” but position as Investments that will help increase US GDP. Democrats should also agree that every wage-earner has to pay some income tax, even if it’s only $100 per year.

Some of the changes in positioning should be considered more semantic than substantive. However, the changes could allow Republicans and Democrats to claim some type of victory and begin to work more closely together. The changes would also thwart some of the statements by conservative talking heads implying that about half the population pays no tax. These talking heads only state “income tax” and make no mention of people paying sales tax, property taxes, fees and many other related taxes. (FYI, the percentage is remarkably flat by quartile of income paid for all types of taxes.)

Will the rhetoric change and Republicans and Democrats begin working together soon – at least agree to retrain workers to be displaced by the technology tsunami? Maybe start working together before the Revenge Revolution? As long as Trump is controlling the Republican Party, there is no hope. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to prostitute themselves for whatever the Donald demands, however contrary those demands are to long-held Republican principles.

Democrats, however, have a great opportunity for 2020 to begin repositioning arguments that many so-called “socialist programs” are really business Investments with positive ROI.

Should we be hopeful? Let’s see what happens. Stay tuned.

 

 

#331 Solution to Diversity? Economics, Not Gov’t Intervention.

14 Sunday Apr 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Tech Tsunami

≈ 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, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  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.” 

Entry #319 begins a series describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), and how the US should prepare.  Last week’s Entry #330, outlined reasons why diversity will be important to prepare for…and then capitalize on…the coming technology tsunami. The entry also noted that some conventional ways of creating diversity — school busing, for example — are fraught with problems and have significant potential downsides.

Diversity seems best accomplished on its own. Our neighbors, within a stone’s throw or two, include families from at least four countries. Within this group, there are at least five religions. All that in a suburban environment.

How did such diversity occur? With government intervention? With housing subsidies? “No” to both questions. The diversity evolved from economics…and attitude.

Granted our neighborhood is a bit more affluent than most but affluence may result in less, rather than more diversity. In Entry #330, I described observations from a 5-day visit to a well-known retirement community in Florida. When leaving the community, my wife and I both remarked we had seen no blacks, no Hispanics — yes, this was Florida — one Asian, and no one from the Middle East. We also both commented while we had a lovely time visiting our friends, we wouldn’t want to live there.

So what strategy can help stimulate diversity? Throughout the technology tsunami series I’ve stressed education as a key. Education opens the mind to new ideas, both academic and societal. And for the vast majority of people, education also provides a chance to improve economic status.

Education for this discussion consists of four major stages, or chunks:

  1. Primary education — i.e., “readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic” — and some social skills
  2. Secondary education — middle school and high school
  3. University or Advanced Technical Training
  4. Continuing education – following initial employment and continuing throughout one’s career

For primary and secondary education, the public has consistently supported taxpayer funding. While some changes to the primary and secondary curriculum might be required for the technology tsunami, the key to preparing for the coming technology tsunami seems to lie in Stage 3 — College, Advanced Technical Training — and Stage 4 — on-going training once in the workforce.

Currently, only a small percentage of the population can afford securing a college degree or advanced technical training certificate without financial assistance. Even with scholarships or reduced tuition, many students need loans. Terms of these loans are often onerous, saddling graduates with years of debt, which in turn reduce their opportunity to save for buying a house and/or to start saving for their children’s education. (For more about the problems with people paying off loans, or thinking they have paid off loans, see 19 04 13 Student Loan Repayment Issues and Problems)

Maybe the solution to the how-to-finance-advanced-education conundrum is easier than we think. Why not take the same approach to financing education that seems to work well for medical coverage in all industrialized countries…other than the US (so far). Allow students to attend a home-state university at little or no charge for a specified period — say five (5) years. Extend the no-charge time period if a student works.

Like universal health care, offer a “private,” additional-cost option. Under this option, students could attend an out-of-state university or private college/university. Tuition and other costs would be set by the institution. The private institution could still offer financial aid to students.

Technical trade schools could have the same option. Attend state-run technical schools at no charge with the option to attend private-technical or trade schools.

Technical/trade schools would need to meet one hurdle not currently required — accreditation.  Accreditation would sharply reduce considerable fraud among private technical/trade schools — Trump University being but one example. The accreditation process would be similar to that used for academic institutions.

And please don’t view subjecting the trade/technical schools to accreditation as government overreach. Educational institutions need some form of regulation. A market-based system will not work because, by the time the student understands the school is not providing adequate education, the student has wasted several years and is saddled with significant debt.

What about people who do not want additional education or who are not mentally capable? We’re not living in Lake Woebegone where all students are above-average.

A portion of the student population will not pursue additional education and a percentage of those will not even graduate from high school. While some low-skill jobs likely will continue to exist, people in those jobs should earn a minimum wage that allows them to live above the poverty line.

Policies to address this lower-education group are separate from policies to prepare the US society for the coming technology tsunami. The goal of the “tsunami series” is to outline approaches that will increase significantly the percentage of the population that is skilled adequately to thrive in a technology-based economy.

What about the education outlined in Stage 4? Ongoing education seems to be in a black hole where: (i) there is no existing infrastructure supporting such education…and none planned; (ii) no one in state or Federal government seems to be responsible for on-going Abbott Costelloeducation; (iii) there is no coordinated effort by private industry and/or trade groups. Policies for on-going education seem to have evolved from the Abbott and Costello routine of “Who’s on First?” Just who’s in charge of continuing education?

Logically you’d think private companies would want to maintain an educated workforce. But because of lack of restrictions…or penalties…re relocation, many US companies operate as if they have no responsibility to spend money to provide continuing education to their workforce. When the workforce skills become dated, a company, with little or no penalty, can close shop and move to another location. The new location will be selected based on which state or city is offering the most incentives, including training the new workforce.

Taxpayers at both ends – the location where the company left and the new location – get stiffed while the company management and shareholders benefit. (For more about the impact of how companies can adversely affect a community, and not suffer any consequences, see Entry #86, “Is North Carolina a Stealin’ State?” and Entry #87. There are several other entries as well that address similar issues.)

As far as addressing the issues of ongoing education, that deserves a separate entry, which will be number #332.

Note: within hours of publishing this blog entry, received the 04/14/2019 edition of the Charlotte Observer.  A front-page article discussed whether eliminating certain zoning restrictions — banning single-family zoning, e.g. — would help stimulate diversity.  My short answer is “No.”  Tweaking of zoning regulations for single-families is different than wholesale banning, which is likely to have major negative consequences for attracting higher-income families to remain in the city limits.  Link to article, 19 04 14 CLT Observer re Zoning Changes for Diversity. 

#330 Is Diversity a Key Component of Preparing for the Technology Tsunami?

06 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, 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.  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.” 

Entry #319 begins a series describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), and how the US should prepare.  Part of the preparation is understanding and appreciating other countries and cultures. How do people in other countries/cultures think, behave, and interact with others? Developing this understanding will help prepare the United States for how to respond when other countries attempt to use technology against us in the future.

As technology has evolved from sailing ships to ocean liners to airplanes to communications via satellite, the world has become smaller. Earlier this week, I was reminded how small the world has become with advances in technology. A chain of communications started when I emailed a business colleague, congratulating her on more than 20 years operating a consulting firm.

Her response, which I received the next morning, thanked me for the note…and also indicated she was responding from a hut in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. A couple of back-and-forth emails explained she had access to some solar power and a slow-speed satellite link. The link was fast enough to allow sending a picture of a rather large tarantula meandering on the deck surrounding her hut.

While my business colleague was experiencing diversity in the Amazon rainforest by working with indigenous people, what about experiencing diversity at home – in the city where you live? In your neighborhood? And does experiencing diversity even matter? Well, yes, I think diversity does matter if the US is to develop an effective strategy to capitalize on the coming technology tsunami rather than being overwhelmed by the technology tsunami.

A key component of preparing for the technology tsunami is education…and education for all age cohorts. Part of that education includes learning about and really understanding other cultures. Ideally that understanding is gained on the ground in the local country. Unlike my business colleague, few families, however, can afford to travel worldwide and experience these cultures firsthand. What’s an alternative? A great way to start is trying to understand cultures in your immediate locale. Most urban areas in the US have pockets of different ethnic groups and cultures.

What happens when your locale is not diverse? When everyone in your locale looks and speaks the same? Does the lack of diversity really matter? Homogeneity may be comforting but it runs the risk of stifling creativity. Homogeneity is also a breeding ground for “group think.” Make no mistake, overcoming the threats of technology tsunami will require significant creativity.

Recently my wife and I visited some longtime friends who moved to a well-known retirement community in Florida. Their house is lovely, and in the larger community the grounds well-maintained and almost every shopping need and service is nearby. Our host jokingly referred to the development as a “reservation.” He also noted liking to stay on the reservation and avoiding the real world, which he considered not always pleasant.

Another friend, whom we met for coffee, had lived and worked on the “reservation” but later moved to a nearby location. He noted how virtually every aspect of life in the retirement community was managed, including hiring doctors in the clinics who fit a “Marcus Welby” profile.

During our stay, which included golf, multiple restaurants, shopping and extensive travel by golf cart, neither of us saw any blacks, Hispanics or members of virtually any non-western European ethnic group. Only one member of a golf group that I was in, which included several foursomes, was Asian.

So, back to the question – “Does diversity really matter in preparing for the technology tsunami?” Does living in a sanitized bubble really matter, especially for people who are retired? Do the retirees really care about the coming technology tsunami? And does the rest of society care what retirees think?

My vote – living in a sanitized bubble is not good for society, even for retirees. Most retirees living in the bubble have children and grandchildren. Why Gramps may be technology challenged and/or a curmudgeon, Gramps still has some influence on the grandchildren. And Gramps still votes. And we know Gramps mostly watches Fox News, which seemed to be the channel of choice virtually everywhere we went on the reservation.

The technology tsunami will be a major threat to Gramps children and grandchildren. Without an effective US response, sustained economic growth will become nearly impossible. To create an economy that can capitalize on the technology tsunami…and not be overrun by it…will require a range of thinking from people of different cultures.

If you don’t believe diversity and creativity are linked, take a look at the mix of faculty and students at say the Media Lab at MIT. Then take a close look at the range of highly innovative ideas and products emerging from the lab. Living in a bubble, whether physically or politically, lessens the opportunity for creative thinking.

Diversity can be accomplished a number of different ways. Ideally, diversity evolves on its own without any intervention. For example, in the eight houses in our neighborhood that I pass on the way to get coffee, there are families from at least four countries. And the eight houses include families practicing at least five different religions. An even more diverse population exists in the apartments that I pass closer to the coffee shop. That cultural/religious mix happened on its own.

Forcing such a diverse mix is problematic and smacks of too much government intervention. However we…societal we…can Implement policies that encourage more diversity….and we can also prohibit policies that intentionally discourage diversity.

What about policies that encourage diversity in schools? How should diversity in schools accomplished? A seemingly obvious solution is busing. While busing might make create a diverse classroom, busing has many negatives, including excessive cost and excessive travel time for many students. Another downside of busing not often discussed is the risk that businesses may decide not to locate in a school district where busing is mandated. The longer-term effect of not attracting businesses and staff is a lower tax base and slower economic growth for the school district.

A policy that discourages diversity is charter schools. North Carolina is an example of this strategy, although not necessarily representative of all states with charter schools.

In North Carolina, charter schools: (i) receive taxpayer funding; (ii) select students, although the charter schools claim admission is open to all who “qualify”; (iii) are not subject to the same rules and/or oversight as public schools. Recently, the North Carolina legislature passed a law requiring all teachers in North Carolina to secure a North Carolina license. Teachers licensed to teach in other states still need to pass the North Carolina test because the test in another state “might not be as rigorous” as in North Carolina. All teachers…oops all teachers except those in charter schools…are subject to the license requirement. Thus, any teacher relocating to North Carolina is effectively incentivized to avoid the hassle of getting a NC teachers license required for a public school and instead, teach at a charter school. In addition to not needing a license, teacher pay at a charter school is not subject to the same guidelines as at a public school.

The continued negative policies of the North Carolina legislature to erode the value of public education is one of the reasons I wrote blog Entries #324 and #325, which outline why banning charter schools is a necessary component of preparing for the technology tsunami. Still, banning charter schools still does not solve the diversity issue. And busing kids to create diversity has too far many negatives.

What’s the solution to more diversity in schools and society? Economics and attitude. More to come.

 

#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.)

#323 Turning Point and a Really Bad-Hair Week for the Donald

28 Monday Jan 2019

Posted by in Economics, Gov't Policy, 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, 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.” 

Regular readers know I try to avoid getting hung up on daily/weekly events. The purpose of this blog is to analyze if and how long-term patterns might contribute to a post-2020 revolution in the US, aka the Revenge Revolution. However, events this past week seem to be beyond the usual “Beltway noise.” The week’s events could help change the trajectory of politics in Washington. “C’mon,” you say. “A heady week but not that heady.” I think that heady. Read on.

Key events during the week: (i) Michael Cohen, Trump’s long-time lawyer and now convicted felon, proposed delaying his volunteer testimony before the House Oversight Committee. One day after the announced delay, the House Intelligence Committee issued a summons for Cohen to appear; (ii) Roger Stone, long-time associate of Trump’s and known dirty trickster for approaching 50 years, was arrested on a number of charges related to the 2016 presidential campaign. More charges are expected; (iii) Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell caved and agreed to end the government shutdown of more than 35 days; (iv) Rudy Giuliani’s continued to disclose suspicious events previously denied. In addition to Rudy’s babbling, an article in the New York Times indicated one or more members of the Trump campaign met with the Russians at least 100 times before inauguration.

A fifth, less publicized event, was the appearance of Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chair, at a hearing to determine if an additional 10 years should be added to Manafort’ s existing prison sentence. The prosecution charged that Manafort intentionally withheld relevant information about sharing data with the Russians. The judge delayed the decision.

The events, if considered individually are interesting, but not necessarily significant. When combined the events, at least in my view, represent a major shift in power in Washington. The federal government is no longer controlled by the Bully-in-the-Oval-Office as Republicans in the House and Senate cowered. Power in Washington took a turn back toward the people.

As a result of pressure from constituents and some Republican senators, Mitch McConnell came out of hiding and convinced Trump that he should agree to reopen the government. The House and Senate then passed bills and Trump signed…with no guarantee there would be a wall at the southern border. While the agreement to open is limited to three weeks…and despite Trump’s huffing and puffing and threats to blow the house down if he doesn’t get his wall…pressure from constituents likely will prevent another shutdown

How do these events tie together? The key seems to be Republicans in the Senate are starting to show some backbone. Until a few weeks ago, Trump had free reign to do whatever he wanted. He felt immune from impeachment because of a Republican controlled House and Senate. Well, no more and no doubt this week Trump felt the noose tighten around his neck.

Start with Cohen. When testifying Cohen has nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling all. There’s a chance Mueller et al will again recommend a shorter sentence. Based on comments from several members of the committee, as much of Cohen’s testimony as possible will be made public.

Next we have Roger Stone. While defiant after his arrest and claiming loyalty to Trump, Stone may end up behaving like many of Trump associates already indicted as a result of the Muller probe – and flip. When the reality of a likely long prison sentence sets in – and for Stone it effectively could be a life sentence according to several former Federal prosecutors – Stone may drop the “never-tell-on-Trump” boast and decide saving the Donald is less important than trying to save his personal life.

The arrest of Stone leaves but a few people in Trump’s inner-circle not indicted. Steve Bannon may be next on Mueller’s list. Bannon will be quickly discredited by Trump, providing incentive for Bannon to flip – if he hasn’t already. The group remaining to be indicted is all in Trump’s family. Junior and Jared look like shoe-in’s for an indictment. And the odds for Ivana are better than 50:50.

So, who in the family might flip? If you’re a Trump family member, covering up for the Donald is high risk. When all the dust settles, especially after investigations and prosecutions by the Southern District of NY, the State of NY, and the IRS…along with a likely plethora of civil suits by condo owners, contractors, etc…there likely won’t be any money left in the Trump piggy bank.

So, if I’m a family member, let me consider my alternatives. If I refuse to cooperate with Muller, I go to jail and when a get out, I’ll probably get little or no money. Or, I can cooperate with Mueller et al and maybe avoid jail time. Mmm, which one should I choose?

As far as Trump, he’s acting like most bullies. When confronted with a tough opponent, the bluster goes away and the bully caves. And for Trump-the-Bully, his nemesis is not some physical tough guy. His nemesis is an older woman (by a few years) who’s raised five (5) kids. The past few weeks Nancy Pelosi treated Trump the same way she probably treated one of her kids, when a two-year old and throwing a tantrum. She hung tough and the kid folded.

What may be the final mental straw for Trump, however, the adoring, brain-washed base of supporters is shrinking. The 35-day government shutdown started shedding light on how Trump was willing to screw over the working class to save face over a physical wall. Many people now understand a Trump-style wall would do significant harm to the environment and offer little protection against illegal immigration and shipments of illegal drugs. Based on reports I’ve read, 85-90% of the illicit drugs enter the US through monitored ports of entry.

While the information from Mueller probe could…and probably should…lead to impeachment proceedings, Trump also faces another hurdle that seems to trump (pun intended) most presidents seeking re-election – “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The US has experienced an exceptionally long period of economic growth. The growth started under president Obama following efforts through the Federal Reserve to kick-start the economy following the financial crisis at the end of the Bush Administration. While the current economy appears strong based on certain indicators – unemployment rate and some increases in wages, e.g. – there are many soft spots.

The problem facing the Trump Administration is how to counter an economic downturn. Normally, monetary policy is the first step – the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to stimulate borrowing and investment. This option is almost off the table since interest rates remain near historic lows. Fiscal policy follows with an increase in government spending (and the deficit) for such high-employment projects as road building/repairs. Oops, the deficit is climbing while the economy is strong so this is a limited option. Why is the deficit climbing? Because of the Trump tax cut. (I’ll save a longer discussion on the economy for another entry.)

There is a solution. While the solution is an enigma to current Trump Republicans, I have a feeling that over the next few years many of these Republicans will support the solution. What can be done? Raise taxes and redistribute income through a number of different means. And no, the approach isn’t classic socialism. The approach is called Keynesian economics. If you don’t think it works and is necessary for a stable society, then ask your parents or grandparents to tell family stories about what life was like during the Great Depression. If no one in the family has stories, then there are lots of books and movies. I’m not suggesting we’re headed for another Great Depression but there are few options left for countering a recession. (And, FYI, higher taxes did not slow growth in the 1990’s under president Clinton or in the 1950’s under Eisenhower.)

So, what does the Donald do? In the face of all the problems, he resigns to avoid being indicted. Remember, the Donald is a bully. Bullies cut and run when faced with a difficult situation. Even if he doesn’t resign, he doesn’t seek reelection…maybe because his bone spurs start to act up.

What about the Revenge Revolution? Still going to happen or will these events prevent it? Still going to happen. There’s a group that supported Trump that still feels screwed. First they felt screwed by the establishment and now screwed by Trump. If the Democrats in the House can begin to pass legislation that will help mitigate some of the inequities, real and perceived, then there will be significant pressure on the Senate to support the legislation. Such legislation will help mitigate the intensity of the Revenge Revolution.

The Revenge Revolution will be more cultural, although expect some bloodshed. For reference think of the cultural changes in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. We’re going to see another sea-change in society. Lots of issues to address – managing contributions to climate change, reducing income inequity, improving public education for all ages, implementing universal medical care, and more. To get an idea of the changes ahead, all we have to do is look at the mix of incoming members of the House. That group is more like America’s future and that group is going to force the 5th US revolution and societal changes.