Category Archives: Possible Solutions

Range of ideas to consider for helping the US transition from revolution to a more stable environment.

#409: “She’s Real Fine My 409”

21 Sunday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be 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 a revolution in the US is 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.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

ENTRY #409 BEGINS: OK so you have to be well on the other side of age 50 to remember the opening lyrics of the song “409” by the Beach Boys. But the lyrics have such a ring that I couldn’t pass it up for this entry.  Now, what to write about that’s consistent with the lyrics.

The two most recent blog entries, #407-#408, addressed: (i) why the Republicans need to create a new credible conservative party and, (ii) how the Democrats could help Republicans form such a party.  The idea of Democrats helping Republicans might seem crazy at first blush but I think the idea is worth pursuing.  Why?

Let’s start with the assumption that for a democracy to function properly, there must be at least two credible, functioning parties. Right now we have one functioning party, the Democrats.  And we have at least two splinter groups claiming to represent Republicans in some way.

The splinter groups do not function at the national level, other than trying to block anything proposed by Democrats, no matter how rational the idea. At some state levels, Republicans are more of a force. Most recent efforts by Republicans in a number of states have been aimed at suppressing voting rights.  The need to suppress rights has been justified using made-up evidence that “proves” voter fraud, mostly from mail-in ballots, and only mail-in ballots from Democrats, of course. 

Republicans seem to forget the only case of voter fraud in the last couple of decades, and maybe longer, involved mail-in ballots in the NC 9th district.  And which party was guilty of voter fraud?  Oops, it was Republicans rather than Democrats.  The fraud was so extensive the courts forced another election.  But Republicans never let facts get in the way.

So how do Democrats make the crazy idea of helping Republicans actually work? How do Democrats get Republicans to consider the list of 10 ideas described in Entry #408 that should help rebuild or create a credible Republican Party? 

During services Friday night, the rabbi discussed an event that occurred in the south in the early 1970’s. The storyline was about how the former head of a local KKK chapter and a black female activist ended up working together.  The lesson was that while both parties were obviously outside their comfort zone, to make the relationship work, each one had to trust the other and each had to give up something the other side viewed as valuable.

We have the ingredients for a similar situation in Congress. Some far-right Republicans could be mistaken for the head of the local KKK.  And we have as president of the Senate, a black woman. Seems like a close enough match.

Maybe our congressional black activist, VP Kamala Harris, could reach out to the likes of Mitch McConnell, and Rand Paul in the Senate and Jim Jordan and others in the House. What’s really the risk of Democrats reaching out? The Republican groups oppose almost everything proposed by Democrats, even proposals that have widespread support among registered Republicans. 

VP Harris seems like she could be a good listener. She’s also probably a tough negotiator, having been both a District Attorney and Attorney General in California.

Harris could offer to cut a deal with the Republicans.  But the deal should be based on terms that are more like a plea bargain. Yes, we Democrats will work with you Republicans.  But you Republicans must keep your word, unlike your behavior during the Obama administration.  If a key Republican agrees to a deal and then reneges, the Biden administration should use any number of non-public ways of inflicting pain on the traitor.

I don’t know exactly what Democrats could offer that Republicans might really want and stimulate their interest. Doubtless, Democratic members of Congress and/or the administration have some ideas. Whatever is offered, make sure it is meaningful.

If the Republicans are interested and willing to give up something and then Democrats give up something they think is important, the discussion might work and we could begin to see the rebuilding of some of the Republican Party. If the discussions don’t work, so what? No harm, no foul.

Now back to the title, “She’s Real Fine My 409.”  I think VP Harris, a California girl no less, fits that title and would be an ideal person to begin helping the Republicans get back on track.  Use the 10 ideas in Entry #408 as a start.  What a great move that would be for the country.

Booklets you might find interesting: 

Advertisement

#408 Ideas How Democrats Can Help Principled Republicans Find a Home

14 Sunday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be 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 a revolution in the US is 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.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

ENTRY #408 BEGINS: Entry #407 suggested Democrats should work with principled Republicans to form a new political party. #407 also noted this entry would present ideas to help form such a party.

Maybe the best way to start is to refer to an old adage, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” For this discussion, let’s label principled Republicans as “enemies.”

However, the real enemies to the US democracy are not principled Republicans but the far-right Republican fringe groups. These groups have demonstrated a number of times, the most recent of which was the 01/06/2021 attack on the US Capitol, they do not support democratic elections, but support violence and/or threats of violence to ensure far-right ideas are implemented.

How do Democrats help principled Republicans form a new party?  For certain one needs to “think outside the box.”  One needs to put away the notion that politics must be a zero-sum game.

The vast majority the US population wants government to function. The recent Covid relief legislation is an excellent example.  According to a Pew Research poll, 70% of the US population supported the bill, including ~40% of Republicans.  

Despite widespread support among constituents, did any, even one, Republican vote for the relief bill? No, nada, none.  Why?  For many House members, apparently it was fear of losing the next primary to a far-right candidate.

But what was the excuse for voting “no” among moderate Republican Senators, especially those elected in late 2020 to six-year terms?  Senators are elected by everyone in the state, not just voters from smaller districts.  So, why not vote for the Covid relief bill?  

Many of those same Senators who voted “no” to help the America people with the Covid relief bill, voted “yes” to confirm Merrick Garland as US Attorney General.  In fact, 20 Republicans supported Garland’s confirmation, including none other than Mr. Hypocrisy himself, Mitch McConnell. 

Why the disconnect in voting between the Covid relief bill and the Garland nomination? Put aside the idea of Covid relief bill was too expensive.  The same group of Republican Senators voted to support the Trump tax cut which was far more expensive.  If you have a reasonable answer for the illogical behavior by these Republicans, please let me know because it makes no sense to me.

Since Republicans, or seemingly principled Republicans, don’t have a home and keep wandering about aimlessly, Democrats need to help them. Far-right Republicans despise those Republicans with principles and want to get rid of any moderates.

What can Democrats do to help these aimless principled Republicans?  Following are proposals intended to: (i) provide some cover for these pour souls and (ii) make democracy function more in line with people’s needs. The ideas are not to suggest that the will of the majority should always prevail.  Such an approach is contrary to basic tenets of the US Constitution.

The proposals are geared to allow candidates with different views to be elected and to diminish the influence of groups whose interests seem contrary to the best interest of the country. Yes, I understand the definition of “best interests” can be murky and can change over time but reasonable people can agree on many proposed actions.  The proposals listed should also be considered as “work in progress,” since some tweaks are likely needed.

#1.  Create a legitimate umbrella party for independents, moderate Republicans and even some moderate Democrats. The umbrella could be called the “Independent Party.”   The action to create the umbrella party would include a federal mandate requiring all states to allow candidates to register as members of the Independent Party.

#2.  Primaries would consist of a single ballot that includes all candidates from the various parties. The candidate’s political party affiliation would be designated on the ballot.

#3.  Primaries would allow voters to select at least two, and possibly three candidates. The three candidates with the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, would be on the ballot for the general election.

#4. Early voting and mail-in voting would be expanded. Online voting would be tested and implemented as quickly as possible after security concerns are addressed by a third party.

#5. House and Senate rules would allow Independent Party members to become leaders of each body. The Independent Party would be considered separate, but equal to the Republican and Democratic Parties.

#6. The Federal oversight provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be reinstated fully to help ensure fair voting procedures in all states.

#7.  Even without the Independent Party, Democrats would work with principled Republicans to develop legislation that both could support. In addition, Democrats would let principled Republicans take the lead on shepherding some legislation through Congress and take credit publically for initiating many of the proposals.

#8.  The US Attorney General, as Merrick Garland stated within hours of taking office, would ensure to the extent possible that all prosecutions are based on facts and blind to party affiliation.  To the extent possible evidence in high-profile cases would be made public, with the purpose of reducing doubt about the legitimacy of the case.

#9.  USAG would encourage the Attorney General in each state to take the same approach to evidence-based prosecution as done by the DOJ.

#10.  Democrats and principal Republicans should agree to approve only moderate nominees for the Supreme Court. In addition, the vote for any Supreme Court nominee should return to previous requirement of 60 votes in the Senate.

In less than two months in office, the Biden Administration seems to have made considerable progress in beginning to restore some confidence in the Federal government. These proposals are designed to help build on those early steps. 

Will these changes work? I don’t know. But, for sure we need to do something.  More to come.

Booklets you might find interesting: 

#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.

 

#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

≈ 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:

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.

 

#327 Do For-Profit Universities Help Prepare for Coming Technology Tsunami – Yes, No?

10 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, 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.” 

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. Here’s another aspect of public education that needs more discussion.

Do for-profit universities help prepare students for the coming technology tsunami? My view? No. First, let’s define for-profit universities, or FPU`s. These are institutions with a primary purpose of making a profit for investors. In an FPU, education happens to be the product. The product to generate a profit could just as easily be processing waste – e.g., Waste Management Incorporated – or selling coffee – e.g., Starbucks.

While doubtlessly some FPU’s are well-intentioned and focus on educating students, let’s not forget the primary purpose of any for-profit company. Duh, sell a product/service, make a profit and return money to investors.

But you ask, “What about private colleges and universities? Aren’t they in business to make a profit? I mean, Harvard has a huge endowment — maybe $10 billion or something?”

Harvard’s endowment is more like $35-40 billion.

“Alright, lots more endowment than I thought. I’m confused. What’s really the difference between Harvard or MIT and say Trump University? Maybe Trump University is a bad example, but what about say University of Phoenix? It’s for profit and from what I can tell, University of Phoenix does more public good for lower-income people than either Harvard or MIT. University of Phoenix educates a lot of people who otherwise could not attend college. Your argument against for-profit universities sounds elitist.”

Agreed that University of Phoenix seems a lot more affordable than many private education institutions. But such an argument creates a false equivalency. Realistically, 99.9% of the students attending University of Phoenix could not qualify academically to attend the top-end academic institutions in the US. Not being qualified academically does not mean these students are dumb; they lack demonstrated skills in key areas.

Maybe the better question about public good is, “When all the costs are taken into account, is there a less costly and more effective alternative to teach basic skills than such places as University of Phoenix?” Let’s also be honest about education and skills. Not everyone has the same skills or can even acquire the same skills. My crayon jungle drawing from grammar school might have won 2nd place prize at the county fair, but no amount of training is going to make me a successful professional artist.

From a public good perspective, how can we… the proverbial societal “we”…make sure all students have an opportunity to learn basic skills that will enable them to secure and retain a reasonably well-paying job? While everyone in the US is supposed to have access to free public education through high school, a remarkable percentage of students do not complete high school.

As of 2016, the high school drop-out rate was 25% or more in some states. (When reviewing the data by state, reported graduation rates in some states seems highly inflated…or the standards to graduate in those states are exceedingly low.) Lots of reasons for not finishing, including recognizing that not all students learn at the same rate or the same way. In addition, some families have such limited income that children must work to help support the family as soon as possible, even if it means dropping out of high school.

While the reasons may vary for dropping out, should society ask these students to pay to finish their education, especially through for-profit institutions? Asking them to pay a very high price just to finish their high-school education is a disincentive to complete the degree. Plus the cost of attending remedial classes at a for-profit institution creates an excessive financial burden on someone who’s likely to be earning low wages and have little or no savings.

Wouldn’t society be better off to pay for their education? Paying to complete high school would provide those who didn’t finish a better opportunity to secure higher-paying jobs and, with those jobs, pay more taxes for their entire life. Providing an opportunity to complete high school and maybe two years additional education at no cost could likely help reduce crime and the cost of incarceration.

As noted in Entry #326, the estimated cost of incarceration per prisoner per year ranges from roughly $30,000 to $60,000. Based on the analysis described in Entry #326, paying for prisoners to secure a technical degree or college degree while incarcerated resulted in a return on investment to taxpayers of 400-700%, and possibly higher.

“OK, I’ll buy your logic but what’s wrong with using for-profit universities to offer such some education? Besides, the private sector is always more cost-effective than government.”

Why use public education rather than private for-profit institutions?

  1. No additional facilities required to host classes. The remedial, technical and early college classes could be held in the evening and/or weekends using existing high school, junior college or some government buildings. Virtually all of these buildings are used more during the day and have surplus capacity in the evening and on weekends.
  2. Alternative teaching methods in place. Virtually all public school systems have implemented alternative teaching methods, which could be adopted for older students who learn differently.
  3. Public education does not add additional financial burden on the student. University of Phoenix, for example, charges about $1,200 per course. For student needing say ten classes to complete high school (equivalent about one year), the cost using the University of Phoenix rate would be at least $12,000. What may be even more of a problem for these students is the course material for what is usually a semester course – say 3-4 months – is crammed into five (5) weeks. Cramming material into five weeks leaves virtually no time for course material to “sink in.” Think of drinking out of a fire house. If a student does not fully grasp the idea when presented, the student is immediately behind. For institution like Phoenix, this approach can lead to the same person attending yet again…and another tuition payment.
  4. Class content can be tailored to help prepare students to continue their education in community college programs, whether technical training or prep for college.

The question posed in the title of this Entry, “Do for-profit universities help prepare for the coming technology tsunami?” I continue to say, “No, these institutions do not.” As frustrated as we sometimes are with the public education system, the system is designed for the public good…and not to generate a profit and provide (some believe maximize) a return to investors.

The US needs to prepare for the oncoming technology tsunami. One key component of preparation is to increase the number of qualified workers. Much like educating prisoners, providing classes/remedial training to those who have not completed high school is in the public interest by increasing at very low-cost, the pool of skilled workers. A larger pool of skilled workers is essential for the US to maintain production of goods and services and remain competitive worldwide.

What about for-profit institutions designed to train people to become technicians, designers, hairdressers and a host of other occupations? Don’t these for profits offer a benefit to the public? Possibly but maybe a more cost-effective approach is to the scope of public education to include such training. (The question is a bit off-line from the more serious issue of preparing for the technology tsunami. I might offer a few thoughts in one of the next couple of entries.)

 

#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.

#319 Technology Tsunami Headed toward US Shores

01 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Tech Tsunami

≈ 4 Comments

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. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous 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” as well as “Tech Tsunami”, which has more articles about how technology might affect US…and add a dimension to the Revenge Revolution.

Background to Technology Tsunami Series. Thought it might be worthwhile to take a break from all the craziness in Washington and discuss other issues that likely will contribute to the Revenge Revolution. A key issue that seems to be getting less attention than it deserves….maybe because of all the noise emanating from the Trump White House…is how the implementation of technology will change the family earnings structure in the US.

We’ve seen some of the changes already, with the reduction in manufacturing jobs and the stagnation of wages for a large segment of the population. In my view the changes so far are just a small taste of what is to come. The next several blog entries…and I don’t know how many at this point…will focus on what I’m labeling the coming “technology tsunami.” The first of the entries, which follows, is a bit long but tries to set the stage.

There are already numerous early warning signs of the tsunami. An example – the announcement by General Motors in November 2018 of its intent to close five (5) plants in North America. Another warning sign is a story in the New York Times about a robotic arm playing the piano. While a robot playing a piano may seem like a bit of a novelty, think about the implications. The more dexterous robots become, the more robots can perform tasks of people who are highly skilled. Robots in warehouses and welding or painting in cars/trucks are commonplace. Those tasks are fairly straight forward compared to cooking or performing surgery or a host of other tasks.

As noted in this entry, over the centuries societies have coped with implementation of new technologies. Some societies have adopted new technologies and succeeded; others did not adopt new technologies and fell behind.  An example — in 1910, GDP per capita in Argentina was about 80% of US GDP per capita.  By 2010, 100 years later, GDP per capita in Argentina had fallen to about 30% of US GDP per capita.

Adopting successfully is very difficult. There are a couple of interesting books about adopting new technologies that we’ll discuss in a later entry. For now let’s get started. As you read, keep in mind how the disruption caused by adopting new technologies might compound societal problems currently facing the US. Numerous factors point to another revolution in the US – the technology tsunami could accelerate the Revenge Revolution and make it worse. And, yes, Mrs. Lincoln, enjoy the play.

Entry Begins

After General Motors announced plans to close five (5) plants in North America (November 2018), I was asked by several friends and colleagues for my opinion of the merits of the decision. While I had no inside information, based on my experience at GM and additional analysis, I concluded GM made the correct decision and should be congratulated.

To explain my logic in more detail, I wrote a couple of informal articles and published links on Facebook. The articles included the term “technology tsunami,” which I thought might help explain some of GM’s rationale for closing the plants…and why GM’s decision might portend what’s ahead for other companies. (GM had additional reasons for the closings. Links to articles on Tech Tsunami page.)

Reaction to the term “technology tsunami” seemed to beg for more explanation. So, here goes. I selected the term “technology tsunami” because the characteristics of a tsunami seemed to be a good proxy for how the wave of artificial intelligence (AI), increased use of robots, implementation of the blockchain, and other technologies will affect employment in the US. The effect will not be limited to the manufacturing and some service sectors but include many white-collar professionals (GM, for example, laid off more salaried  white-collar staff, than hourly manufacturing workers.)

First let’s look at the sequence of a tsunami. The start is often an earthquake or volcanic eruption deep in the ocean. The energy from that quake is transferred in the form of a series of powerful ocean waves. In the open ocean, the change in the wave pattern caused by the earthquake is not necessarily apparent. To the naked eye, tsunami waves appear relatively normal.

The strength of the waves becomes more apparent as waves move closer to shore. As the waves start to come ashore, the waves are compressed. The more gradual the slope of the shoreline, the more compression.

And there is not just one wave that is compressed and hits the shore, but a series of waves. The waves are powerful and of such height that virtually everything at or near the shoreline is completely destroyed. The waves continue inland, causing significant damage. A tsunami usually is more powerful and destructive than the surge associated with a hurricane.

An usual characteristic of a tsunami is how it affects the waterline preceding its arrival. As the tsunami gets closer to shore, the water at shore’s edge recedes. The shoreline looks as if there is an exaggerated low tide. This phenomenon might last several minutes. Then, the waterline changes quickly and drastically as repeated high and powerful waves come ashore, destroying virtually everything.

With that picture in mind, let’s examine how a technology tsunami might affect employment in the US. In my view, the earthquake has already occurred that will cause the technology tsunami. The energy from that quake has been transferred to form of a series of large and destructive waves. And those waves are headed toward the US shore. Warning signs of the tsunami are becoming more evident at the shoreline as the waterline has begun receding.

The US shoreline is filled with people. Many at the shore still work in manufacturing and service industries. However, few at the shore seem to understand the implication of the receding water line and even fewer take action to avoid the pending disaster. As the waves roll closer to shore, the beach remains filled with people.

In the next few moments – for this analysis consider next “few moments” as next “few years” – the pending disaster becomes apparent. The waterline begins moving ashore rapidly as the first of a series of giant waves becomes visible. The people at the shore – those with limited education and skills – try to escape, but it is too late and waves overwhelm them.

The powerful waves continue inland, destroying many long-standing structures, once thought invincible. Much is lost and chaos ensues for those who survive.

Am I overreacting to the potential impact of a technology tsunami? Is a technology tsunami even possible? Or, as a couple of people have suggested, am I being like “Chicken Little”?

My concern about a technology tsunami has less to do with whether AI will become smarter than humans and more to do with the potential impact on the stability of society. How many lower-skilled, semi-skilled and even skilled blue and white-collar jobs will technology replace?

Trying to stop implementation of technology is foolhardy. Depending on when such a stop-technology approach was implemented, today we might be travelling by horse and buggy and living without electricity, telephones, tv/radio, computers, internet, etc.

And yes, I agree that societies have survived major technology disruptions in the past. But transitions to new technologies have rarely, if ever, been smooth. Even worse, countries that did not transition to new technologies became also-rans.

During the technology tsunami, what is likely to happen to societal stability in the US? How will people react who are replaced by technology? As middle-class jobs continue to be eliminated…and many new jobs are at lower pay, if available at all…will people sit idly by? (When formulating your answer don’t be misled by the unemployment rates in recent months. Look at constant-dollar median incomes over time compared to GDP per capital. Income has not kept up with productivity. Also significant wealth has transferred toward the very top. The longer-term trend is a much smaller middle class with less wealth accumulation.)

If a technology tsunami seems possible, then what are we…societal we…doing to prevent a likely social upheaval that follows the tsunami? As best I can tell, we are doing nothing of substance. Policies of the Trump Administration seem to be focused on preventing adoption and even overturning technology rather than planning how to manage the transition.

In a way, the logic for why we should prepare for a technology tsunami is similar to the logic of why we should make efforts to prevent further global warming. Who’s right about the cause of accelerated global warming does not matter. If global-warming deniers are correct and man has contributed virtually nothing to global warming, the consequences are the same…and the consequences are not good. By doing something, then there’s a chance to reduce the negative effects.

Since we have a good idea of the effect of a technology tsunami, how do we start preparing? Maybe the first step should be to look at the 1930’s. In response to widespread unemployment (at least 25%), reduced net worth among most families, and no clear prospect for an economic turnaround, FDR and Congress implemented programs to create jobs. Creating jobs had a twofold effect: (i) putting money into people’s pockets so they could begin buying again; (ii) allowing families to regain self-respect.

One can argue about the efficacy of specific New Deal programs. However, there should be little argument that these programs helped bring stability back to US society.

Part of the New Deal not often discussed is the effort to increase participation in public education. During the 1930’s, many grammar and high schools were built and students encouraged to complete high school.

The efforts resulted in a sharp increase in the percentage of the population graduating from high school. The increase in percent graduating from high school continued until the 1970’s when the rates plateaued.[1]

Emphasis on education continued after WWII with the GI Bill of Rights and then with availability of low-cost loans encouraging more students from lower- and middle-income families to attend college.

The lesson of these programs for today? Existing and emerging technologies require more math/analytical skills to utilize capabilities of the technologies. With the need for more math/analytic skills…and the risk of becoming an also-ran country by not adopting the technologies…what actions do we take? How does US society get more people educated, especially those on the shore unaware of the pending technology tsunami?

Following are some ideas. You’ll likely look at the list and say, “What’s so innovative about the list? I’ve heard these ideas before.” And, you’re right. The ideas are not new…but you know what? We’re not implementing them, and in some cases we seem to be regressing.

The list is intended to start the discussion:

  1. Help society understand that expenses for public education are investments, not merely costs. Investments may take time to payback but result in a benefit that spans generations.
  2. Increase pay for…and respect for teachers. Make the qualifications and salaries for teachers competitive with, and possibly slightly above, the private sector.
  3. Reinstitute more technical training in high schools. Almost everyone agrees not everyone is suited for college. Not attending college does not mean one does not have valuable skills. Far from it. The public schools should provide everyone an opportunity for training in how to use, leverage and maintain technology skills. At one time “technical training” was common in high schools. Time for it to return.
  4. Make loans for college affordable with a provision to “earn-out” the loan over a reasonable period. Unlike today, make compliance for the earn-out provision easy to understand and execute. Provide assistance to the participant – not everyone is an expert at filling out government paperwork. Encourage people to become teachers. Don’t discourage them with onerous penalties for slight mistakes in completing paperwork.
  5. Cut back, or eliminate private charter schools. Yes, all organizations need fixing over time. Public education is no exception. But charter schools are not necessary to fix problems in public education. Charter schools destroy the very foundation of public education…and operate with far less accountability. The trend toward charters needs to stop and charters eliminated.
  6. Create meaningful education programs for older workers. The claim by some that “I’m too old to learn” is an excuse, not a reason. My experience has been many older people are embarrassed to ask for help. When assistance is framed the right way, it is rare that someone turns down the opportunity to learn. We…again societal we…need to be flexible in how we approach teaching students, whether the student prospect is in grammar school or a grandparent.
  7. Implement meaningful education programs and works-skills programs in prisons. Incarceration is incredibly expensive. While different studies include different amounts for overhead and other costs, the least amount of cost per year to incarcerate someone is roughly the same as tuition, room and board at a state university. In many studies, the cost is multiples higher than tuition, room and board. Incarceration without rehabilitation is wasted money. Educating prisoners and having prisoners do meaningful work while incarcerated seems to be “common sense.”

How do we implement some of these ideas? More in the next article. Stay tuned.

[1] 120 Years of American Education: a Statistical Portrait, US Department of Education, 1993.

Links to articles re GM Plant Closings

#299 Making America Great Again #9: Enforce Fair-Play Rules

30 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, 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, 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.

Jordan:  “OK, break’s over.  Any more thoughts on having Leviticus as the standard for behavior inside the Beltway?”

092615_2031_Characters1.jpgJC:  “Look, I like the idea of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ as the standard for behavior.  But let’s not be naïve.  What do we do about those people who don’t follow the rules?”

Greenie:  “You mean like Trump and his gang?”

JC:  “Exactly.  Trump’s behavior pointed a flaw in the Constitution – the assumption that members of the Legislative and Executive branches would behave reasonably civilly.   And, with a few exceptions, that assumption proved correct for 200+ years.”

092615_2031_Characters12.gifGreenie:  “Until Trump.  Then he and his gang basically gave the finger to everyone.  He even trashed people in his cabinet who supported him from the get go.  Some display of appreciation and loyalty, huh?”

Jordan:  “So what can be done to stop Trump-like behavior in the future?  What do we recommend to the post-Revenge-Revolution Congress…assuming some of them are willing to listen.”

JC:  “Listen or not, we’ve still got to try.  Greenie, any ideas on how to enforce more civilized behavior?”

010414_1635_16TeachingS2.jpgGreenie:  “A start would be to reinstate the 60-vote rule in the Senate for approving appointments, whether for the agencies or the courts.  A 60-vote rule would force the White House to offer nominees toward the middle politically…not the extremes.”

JC:  “Good start.  We’d eliminate some bomb throwers from the courts and the agencies – like Trump’s Pruitt at EPA and Mulvaney as Budget Director and head of Consumer Protection.  Behavior of both was way out of line.  I mean, Pruitt and his quest for a used mattress from a Trump hotel.  That sounds almost kinky.”

JudgeJordan:  “On the Judicial side, even with the 60-vote rule, what about limiting tenure of Senate-approved judges?  Right now these judges have lifetime appointments.”

Greenie:  “Maybe there could be an appointment period – say 20 years – and then some way to renew the appointment.”

JC:  “I don’t have any idea what the average tenure of a Federal judge is but being on the bench without a review for 20 years seems more than fair.”

Greenie:  “Maybe add a clause about a renewal option.   Whadda say in the military when you agree to extend your time?”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Re-upping.”

Greenie:  “That’s it, re-upping.  Maybe the default is the judges re-up automatically unless reviewed and denied by the Senate.  But make the re-up period for 10 years, not 20 years.  Think about it – 30 years on the bench is a long time.”

JC:  “Would you apply the 30-year limit to all time spent on the Federal bench or a specific court?”

Jordan:  “The only judges that I think are approved by the Senate are for the Appellate, Circuit and Supreme Courts.”

supreme_court_buildingGreenie:  “I don’t know if the limit should be at the court level or in total.  For now, let’s assume the limit applies to a specific level.  Otherwise someone might get to SCOTUS with only 6-7 years left out of the 30-year limit.  That doesn’t seem fair.”

Jordan:  “What about rules for enforcing behavior in the agencies and in Congress, especially the Congressional committees.”

JC:  “Such as the Judicial Oversight Committee in the House?  During the Trump Administration, good ol’ boy Chairman Nunes took classified information from the Mueller investigation to the White House?  Some oversight, huh?  Tried to give the keys to the henhouse to the fox.”

PoliceGreenie:  “OK, Jordan, any ideas how to stop such behavior?  And what about all the obvious ethics violations by Trump, the Trump family and some cabinet officials?  How do we stop that going forward?”

Jordan:  “We need to be realistic.  Whatever the rule, someone is going to try and get around it.”

JC:  “You going to answer Greenie’s question or mumble like some politician?”

Jordan:  “I’m trying to buy time while I think of a good response.”

Greenie:  “What about this idea as a start?  The office of Ethics…or whatever it’s officially called…used to have some power and was respected by the Executive and Legislative branches…at least until Trump.  Why not give the office more teeth?”

Sharks TeethJC:  “More teeth and more transparency.  I realize there’s some information cannot be disclosed.  But, and this should be a big but…no comments, please about personal appearance…the baseline should be to make the public as aware as possible of the shenanigans and unethical behavior by people inside the government, especially members of Congress and high-ranking agency personnel.  The disclosures might force some people to stop.”

Greenie:  “For those who don’t stop, then give the Ethics Office the right to take them to court for a public trial.  No plea bargaining, no consent decree, no sealed documents or other copout.  Make the record public.”

Jordan:  “Court instead of impeachment?”

Judge with GavelGreenie:  “Make it in addition to impeachment.  Some of the behavior will be illegal.  Why shouldn’t that behavior get punished like the rest of us are subject to?”

Jordan:  “Theoretically the behavior is subject to punishment.”

Greenie:  “Two words you just stated are the problem – ‘theoretically’ and ‘subject.’  Too often the SOB’s in Congress or the Executive Branch who blatantly screw the public are given a slap on the wrist at worst, then sent home with most of their pilfered goodies.”

JC:  “You’re getting tough, Greenie.”

Greenie:  “We need to get tough on these bums.  Otherwise the Revenge Revolution will have been for naught…and I don’t like naught.”

JC:  “Agreed.  Now, ought naught we should take a break?”

 

#296 Making America Great Again #6: Live by the Rules of Golf

03 Sunday Jun 2018

Posted by in 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_Characters1.jpg

Jordan:  “Now, if its ok with you guys, I have another idea for making America great again.”

JC:  “Greenie, are you ready for Jordan’s lightning bolt?”

Greenie:  “OK, Jordan, what’s the idea?”

Jordan:  “We, societal we, would be well served by aligning our behavior with the rules of golf.”

092615_2031_Characters2.jpgGreenie:  “Since neither JC nor I play golf, we have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Jordan:  “Golf has a set of rules that one is expected to follow.  But the difference between golf and other sports is there is no referee to monitor behavior or enforce the rules.”

JC:  “So, if I understand correctly, the individual golfer is supposed to say ‘I broke a particular rule and therefore the penalty is whatever.’ That seems weird.”

GolferGreenie:  “Are you serious?  The individual golfer is supposed to penalize herself or himself for some rules infraction?  I agree, that does seem weird.”

Jordan:  “It might seem weird at first but among people who take golf halfway seriously, there is an incredible amount of self-induced pressure to follow the rules.”

JC:  “So, even if there is no other golfer who can see the rules infraction, you feel pressure to call a penalty on yourself…or whatever you call it.”

Jordan:  “What might seem even stranger is when you’re playing alone, you still don’t break the rules.”

Greenie:  “That behavior is really interesting.”

Jordan:  “In addition to the rules that result in some kind of penalty, there’s rules of etiquette one is supposed to follow.  Some examples, who tees of first, always repair the ball mark on the green, replace the divots, rake the sand trap, leave your bag next to and not on green, don’t drive your golf cart near the green…and a bunch of others.”

Trump Driving on GreenJC:  “I guess I never appreciated all the hullabaloo about Trump, when he was president, driving his cart on the putting green at Mar-a-Lago and that place in New Jersey he used to play.”

Jordan:  “Bedminster.”

JC:  “That’s the place.”

Greenie:  “I hate to sound so naïve but is driving a golf cart on the green so bad?  It’s got those fat tires and they use some type of lawnmower to cut the green.  Is driving the golf cart on the green really that bad?”

TurtleneckJordan:  “As far as hurting or killing the grass on the green, you’re right.  Driving on the green one time is no big deal.  But, in terms of golf etiquette, I can’t think of anything more egregious. In the rules of golf etiquette, you’re not supposed to walk on the green in an area where someone else is going to putt…aka, the putting line.”

Greenie:  “You’re not supposed to walk on…what did you call it…someone’s putting line.  Not walk on it even if the other guy is your opponent?”

Jordan:  “Not even an opponent.  Walking on the line might affect the roll of the ball.”

JC:  “Wow.  If walking’s on the guy’s putting line is bad, what about driving over it?  By driving on the green Trump ignored a whole slew of rules of etiquette.   Maybe worse, he effectively told everyone else in the golf group and every member at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, ‘Screw you.  I’m the king and I set my own rules.’”

Greenie:  “Do golfers really follow the rules?  This all sounds so hypothetical.  How can you tell?”

FlagstickJordan:  “I’ve tested this theory over many rounds.  If you are playing golf with someone you don’t know, by the 4th hole you will have a very good idea of their personality and their ethics.”

JC:  “C’mon.  That sounds preposterous.  How can you tell?”

Jordan:  “Golf is a game where everyone makes lots of errors, even the pros.  By the 4th hole, at least one error will have been made or a situation will have occurred where golf etiquette will come into play.  How the person reacts almost always mirrors their personality and moral character.”

MistakeGreenie:  “Your theory is, if the person readily admits a mistake, or takes the penalty or apologies for breaking some etiquette rule, then that’s a reflection of their true personality.  Same if they don’t acknowledge the mistake, right?”

Jordan:  “Yes.  Have seen it happen time and time again.  The other part you learn about the person is whether they are courteous and helpful to an opponent.  For example, if your opponent hits the ball in the woods and you are reasonably close by, do you help look for the opponent’s ball?”

JC:  “What you’re describing sounds like common courtesy.  Be polite, try to help others and follow some basic rules.  Stuff you learned by second grade.”

Learned in KindergarfenGreenie:  “What was the title of that book?  ‘All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.’”

Jordan:  “That’s about it.  The right type of behavior its stuff we all should have learned as kids.  Somehow many adults seem to have forgotten those lessons or chosen to ignore them.”

JC:  “Maybe the idea of framing post-Revenge Revolution behavior around the rules of golf might work for people.  We also need to make sure whoever’s president is briefed on those rules.  She or he needs to set the example for the country.  Fore!”

(Continued)      

 

#295 Make America Great Again #5: Increase Gas Tax to Fund Infrastructure

27 Sunday May 2018

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

≈ 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_Characters1.jpgJC:  “Alright, now I have an idea for how to make America great again.”

Greenie:  “Could we use another slogan, please?  Making America great again is so Trumpish.”

Jordan:  “I agree the slogan is Trumpish.  However, the ideas we’re discussing, unlike the Donald’s ideas, will make America great again.  At least for now, let’s keep the slogan and try to discuss practical solutions, OK?”

JC:  “Agreed.  The conversation is still among us chickens so using the slogan is ‘no harm, no foul’ so to speak.”

092615_2031_Characters2.jpgGreenie:  “I shouldn’t even smile at that one…but it was pretty good.  Now, JC, stop the puns and tell us your idea.”

JC:  “Simple – increase the gas tax and use the funds to rebuild infrastructure.”

Greenie:  “But we don’t need to destroy more land for a bunch of new roads.”

JC:  “Who said we’re talking only more new roads?”

Jordan:  “Then, if not new roads, what’s your plan?”

albert-einsteinJC:  “Two prongs.  (i) Reconfigure existing roads into smarter roads.  Smarter roads can carry more traffic with a lot less congestion; (ii) rebuild and expand the rail system to handle more passenger trains and freight traffic.”

Greenie:  “I like the idea of better trains but that seems so…well, old fashion.”

Jordan:  “JC, you might be on to something.  Smart highways and smart trains.”

JC:  “Jordan, you’re an experienced commuter in a number of cities.  Which do you prefer, commuting by car or rail?”

metro-north1Jordan:  “Commuting by rail in metro areas is easier, more pleasant, less expensive and faster.  Plus, you can work on the train.”

Greenie:  “What about longer trips – say Washington to Manhattan or even to Boston?  Take the train, plane or drive?”

Jordan:  “Drive, no, unless absolutely necessary.  To NY, train for sure.  By the time you travel to the airport, go through security, wait at the gate, then taxi for takeoff…and probably wait so more, you’re more than halfway to NY.  Then the same wasted time at the destination getting out of the airport, then travelling to the city.  Plus, with a plane and especially driving you end losing lots of productive time.”

JC:  “What about DC to Boston?  That’s about twice as far as NY.”

Jordan:  “That’s where an increase in the gas tax could have the most impact in getting people off the highways and/or out of planes.  Some of the gas tax money could go toward a high-speed rail line.”

Greenie:  “Is high-speed rail practical in the Northeast.  I mean, there are so many curves and old bridges.  Lots of buildings are almost right up against the tracks.  Rebuilding would cause a major tear-up.”

BarriersJordan:  “High-speed rail needs to be defined given the barriers that exist.  High-speed in the Northeast corridor is not going to be like a bullet-train in Japan.  Making that happen would be outrageously expensive and disruptive.”

JC:  “Well, then could high-speed rail in the Northeast average say 100 mph?”

Jordan:  “100 mph average seems like a decent target.  If the trains average 50 mph now, then duh, a 100 mpg average speed would cut travel time in half.  So an 8-hour trip from Boston to DC would be more like 4 hours.”

JC:  “What if we took the major metro areas – DC, NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas…and some others – and drew a 200-mile radius around them?  What percent of the population would be covered?”

Pie ChartJordan:  “Don’t know exactly but I’ll bet you’re pushing 85-90%.”

Greenie:  “You really think the existing railbed could be used?  I realize some improvements would be required but how do we avoid just tearing up more land?”

Jordan:  “With some creative thinking and some application of technology, I’ll bet speed could be doubled without much tear-up of new land.”

bullying-20clipart-bullyingJC:  “This sounds great but what about resolving the conflict between freight and passenger traffic?  The little that I know about rail, the freight railroads seem to keep resisting any efforts to add passenger traffic to certain rail lines…in fact, most rail lines.”

Greenie:  “I agree.  Each side seems to want their own dedicated rail lines.  How does that conflict get solved?”

Jordan:  “The solution is in the approach.  In metro areas many of the freight and passenger tracks are likely to be the same.  In less densely populated areas, would be possible to have more dedicated tracks.”

JC:  “I keep coming back to the question, ‘Do we really need two sets of tracks?’  That seems like old-school thinking.  What about smart trains and smart tracks?”

Greenie:  “Surely, smart trains are easier to manage that smart cars or smart trucks.  The trains just can’t wander off the tracks.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Other than difference in speed between freight trains and passenger trains, I don’t know of a technical reason the two can’t share the tracks.”

JC:  “While we’re at it, why do freight trains have to be so long?  They seem to go on forever…and are so slow.  With all the self-driving technology for cars and trucks, why can’t there be faster, shorter freight trains?”

Greenie:  “Seems like a no-brainer to me.  What’s the real barrier to making these ideas a reality?  Jordan, any thoughts?”

Jordan:  “The discussion about resistance from railroads reminds me of an article we had to read in graduate school.”

JC:  “You can remember that far back?  Just kidding.”

Thumbs DownJordan:  “The article was in the Harvard Business Review and written by Theodore Levitt.  The title was ‘Marketing Myopia.’ An example of the myopia was the railroads viewing themselves as being in railroad business and turning thumbs down to considering being in the transportation business.  As a result, the railroads lost a huge share of the logistics business to the trucking industry.”

Greenie:  “OK, nice observation from ancient history.  But how does that solve the problem we’re talking about?”

Jordan:  “If we think back to some of the other ideas to make America great again, the barrier to accepting the idea was…”

JC:  “…commitment, right?”

Greenie:  “Commitment and support from the Feds, especially Congress.  If that’s the barrier for smarter railroads and faster trains, then what the barriers to improving highways without tearing up new land?”

(Continued)