While I generally am in agreement with Hillary's balance of policies (centrist Democratic that acknowledge taxes can only be so high and business conditions matter), I would really rather have someone younger than Hillary promoting them.
But there are no prominent Democrats younger than boomers. As much as I study politics, I don't understand that because there are plenty of Democratic voters in Gen X.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Why the Minimum Wage Must Rise
Something is simply wrong with the structure of wages when over 50% of all public assistance goes to people who work 38 hours a week and don't earn a living wage.
Decades of cuts in manufacturing to compete with emerging markets labor have pushed people into jobs in food service, home health care, child care (because 2 income families need child care). Now 48% of home care workers get public assistance because their hourly wage is so low. 46% of child care workers get public assistance. The % for food service did not appear in my source document, but 25% of part-time college teachers (a growing phenomenon) get pubic assistance.
I know the Republican arguments that increasing wages will cut employment, but how do we know where the dividing line on that employment is when companies like Wal-mart and McDonalds can game the system and use taxpayer funded assistance to reduce their cost of employment. That subsidy is distorting necessary price discovery in the economy. It is also unfair to Mom & Pop competition when they want to pay a livable wage to their family but cannot due to Megastore competition.
You probably need 3 minimum wages. One for urban areas, one for suburban/small city areas and one for rural areas. This can probably be best done at the state level rather than the Federal level.
Decades of cuts in manufacturing to compete with emerging markets labor have pushed people into jobs in food service, home health care, child care (because 2 income families need child care). Now 48% of home care workers get public assistance because their hourly wage is so low. 46% of child care workers get public assistance. The % for food service did not appear in my source document, but 25% of part-time college teachers (a growing phenomenon) get pubic assistance.
I know the Republican arguments that increasing wages will cut employment, but how do we know where the dividing line on that employment is when companies like Wal-mart and McDonalds can game the system and use taxpayer funded assistance to reduce their cost of employment. That subsidy is distorting necessary price discovery in the economy. It is also unfair to Mom & Pop competition when they want to pay a livable wage to their family but cannot due to Megastore competition.
You probably need 3 minimum wages. One for urban areas, one for suburban/small city areas and one for rural areas. This can probably be best done at the state level rather than the Federal level.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Unintended Consequences and How Conservatives Have Lost Their Way
One of the key things I learned in gaining maturity and the reason I became a Republican after being a Democrat in my youth was that policy needs to manage unintended consequences. I didn't think the Democrats had any thought in that direction in the late 1970's and the Republican did. So I voted for Ronald Reagan, after voting for Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.
Now it is clear to me that the Republicans have no concept of unintended consequences. This is ironic because to me one of the cornerstones of a conservative approach to the world is uncertainty about change and the need to manage change well so that consequences are desirable and not harmful. Reagan started, Clinton continued and Bush II enforced a policy of reducing financial regulation and that brought on the 2008 financial crisis. It was unintended and never managed.
The Tea Party understands this in a way because they just want everything to go back to the way it was in the 1950's, when the world was one they understood. But that doesn't work because nothing stands still. Change must be managed and reacted to through adjustment of policy. Nothing static ever works well forever. Society is too large, too varied, and the things that effect individuals too numerous to not have flows and consequences that must be reacted to in order to manage them.
So this morning we awake to some in the GOP's best friend in Russia, Putin announcing that he is going to sell the Iranians the anti-aircraft missile system he held up on selling them because of the anti-nuclear sanctions the world imposed on Iran. We know this system works because Putin used it to shoot down the civilian Air Malaysia 777. Do you think it is possible that Putin decided to do this to make it more painful for the U.S. and Israel if they decide to bomb Iran? If Putin thinks the Ukraine is part of his zone of influence, he certainly thinks Iran is too, and what better way than to develop favorite influence with them by helping them defend themselves.
Sometimes, I think neoconservatives have forgotten about the issue of Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate us. We need to have them on our side because they are the victim of terrorism also, and if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it is much easier for Iran to deliver it to Russian Muslims than it is someone in America. Russia does not want that, but they also love to poke an eye in America's eye. This needs to be managed (and I know it is not easy).
One interesting thing about GOP reaction to the Iran Nuclear negotiation is everyone, including Netanyahu, wants to go back to the Joint Plan of Action that was developed some 16 months ago, and which they roundly criticized some 16 months ago. It's once again apparent, they cannot describe a policy without criticizing President Obama and they never offer a reasonable alternative policy.
They are lost because they don't even think of consequences. Look at ISIS spawned by our invasion of Iraq. Never contemplated by anyone in the Bush II administration. Look at Al Qaeda, spawned by our invasion of Kuwait from Saudi Arabia and never contemplated by anyone in the Bush I administration. Our cost of health care has been rising inexorably forever, and the GOP developed Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare and repealing what they developed is going to have some kind of consequences and they do not contemplate them. The Supreme Court made companies have constitutional rights of individuals and look at the growth of $ in campaigns, which I believe fosters the gridlock we see in Washington D.C. Unintended consequence of conservative change.
I have gone on too long. Bottom line, Conservatives are so focused on achieving their goals without any thought of the consequences that they are no longer conservative in my mind. They are extremely radical.
Link to Washington Post column that helped my thoughts along
Now it is clear to me that the Republicans have no concept of unintended consequences. This is ironic because to me one of the cornerstones of a conservative approach to the world is uncertainty about change and the need to manage change well so that consequences are desirable and not harmful. Reagan started, Clinton continued and Bush II enforced a policy of reducing financial regulation and that brought on the 2008 financial crisis. It was unintended and never managed.
The Tea Party understands this in a way because they just want everything to go back to the way it was in the 1950's, when the world was one they understood. But that doesn't work because nothing stands still. Change must be managed and reacted to through adjustment of policy. Nothing static ever works well forever. Society is too large, too varied, and the things that effect individuals too numerous to not have flows and consequences that must be reacted to in order to manage them.
So this morning we awake to some in the GOP's best friend in Russia, Putin announcing that he is going to sell the Iranians the anti-aircraft missile system he held up on selling them because of the anti-nuclear sanctions the world imposed on Iran. We know this system works because Putin used it to shoot down the civilian Air Malaysia 777. Do you think it is possible that Putin decided to do this to make it more painful for the U.S. and Israel if they decide to bomb Iran? If Putin thinks the Ukraine is part of his zone of influence, he certainly thinks Iran is too, and what better way than to develop favorite influence with them by helping them defend themselves.
Sometimes, I think neoconservatives have forgotten about the issue of Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate us. We need to have them on our side because they are the victim of terrorism also, and if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it is much easier for Iran to deliver it to Russian Muslims than it is someone in America. Russia does not want that, but they also love to poke an eye in America's eye. This needs to be managed (and I know it is not easy).
One interesting thing about GOP reaction to the Iran Nuclear negotiation is everyone, including Netanyahu, wants to go back to the Joint Plan of Action that was developed some 16 months ago, and which they roundly criticized some 16 months ago. It's once again apparent, they cannot describe a policy without criticizing President Obama and they never offer a reasonable alternative policy.
They are lost because they don't even think of consequences. Look at ISIS spawned by our invasion of Iraq. Never contemplated by anyone in the Bush II administration. Look at Al Qaeda, spawned by our invasion of Kuwait from Saudi Arabia and never contemplated by anyone in the Bush I administration. Our cost of health care has been rising inexorably forever, and the GOP developed Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare and repealing what they developed is going to have some kind of consequences and they do not contemplate them. The Supreme Court made companies have constitutional rights of individuals and look at the growth of $ in campaigns, which I believe fosters the gridlock we see in Washington D.C. Unintended consequence of conservative change.
I have gone on too long. Bottom line, Conservatives are so focused on achieving their goals without any thought of the consequences that they are no longer conservative in my mind. They are extremely radical.
Link to Washington Post column that helped my thoughts along
Sunday, April 12, 2015
"Guns for anyone, anywhere, anytime — no questions asked."
That is a direct quote from the NRA convention stating the goal of the NRA. They are crazy, the reasons police fear for their lives any time they cannot see hands clearly or they do see something that looks like a gun.
How we've gone from protecting citizens rights to a hunting rifle to a policy that protects rights to automatic weapons and promotes youth having guns that are automatic weapons is beyond my comprehension.
What about protecting our police and reducing their fear so they don't shoot unarmed citizens?
How we've gone from protecting citizens rights to a hunting rifle to a policy that protects rights to automatic weapons and promotes youth having guns that are automatic weapons is beyond my comprehension.
What about protecting our police and reducing their fear so they don't shoot unarmed citizens?
Friday, April 10, 2015
Musings on a Friday: Welfare vs business deductions and Police killing Young Black men
The U.S. spends almost as much as Europe on Social Welfare but so much is disguised under tax breaks that it gets lost in the accounting. For example, a business can deduct 50% of a business meal and the participants have zero income for the benefit. In contrast, the government gives a poor person $200 a month in food stamps and the world is focused on that. I knew a lot of businessmen who had more than $200 a month in deductible business dinners and never gave a thought to that discrepancy; myself included. But I don't see Kansas doing anything about that government subsidy while they go after welfare recipients who do not go on cruises and do spend more than $25 in one shopping trip to the Grocery store.
Link to column that provided the inspiration for that thought.
My initial reaction, when there is no video, is to support the police. They have a difficult job when there is no effective gun control and the NRA supports criminals having both automatic weapons and cop killer bullets. That is why a 12 year old with a toy gun can get shot by the police and no wrong found with them. Not that the killing isn't a wrong, but kids cannot play with guns anymore. There is no room for error on the part of the police when there are automatic weapons around. You hope they take the time to not make a mistake and I believe in Cleveland they could have taken more time because the kid was not pointing the gun at them.
But when there is video, or when the instigator is a vigilante, you need to come down hard on the criminal act of a policeman or vigilante. I don't understand why the policeman in NYC who choked Eric Garner to death has not been disciplined in some way by either the legal system or the police department. And I certainly hope that the video and other evidence is enough to convict the policeman who shot an unarmed fleeing perpetrator of a misdemeanor in the back with 8 bullets.
I have great empathy for people who believe the police unfairly target young black men. I do believe many innocent young black men are assaulted by policeman. But I also have empathy for the police who have to always be in fear of hidden weapons and the only way to question someone is to first make sure they don't have a hidden weapon. That leads to necessary unfair treatment. The key is not kill or harm an innocent person.
The police need to be accountable to the public and the public is not simply white voters. The public is everybody of all ethnicity. That is why it is important that people of all ethnicity vote. If minorities don't vote to elect people who care about this there will be no pressure on the police departments to respect citizens of all ethnicity equally.
Local police citizen relations are a local issue. Solutions need to be found at the local level. There is little the Federal level can beyond buying some equipment for the police.
Link to column that provided the inspiration for that thought.
My initial reaction, when there is no video, is to support the police. They have a difficult job when there is no effective gun control and the NRA supports criminals having both automatic weapons and cop killer bullets. That is why a 12 year old with a toy gun can get shot by the police and no wrong found with them. Not that the killing isn't a wrong, but kids cannot play with guns anymore. There is no room for error on the part of the police when there are automatic weapons around. You hope they take the time to not make a mistake and I believe in Cleveland they could have taken more time because the kid was not pointing the gun at them.
But when there is video, or when the instigator is a vigilante, you need to come down hard on the criminal act of a policeman or vigilante. I don't understand why the policeman in NYC who choked Eric Garner to death has not been disciplined in some way by either the legal system or the police department. And I certainly hope that the video and other evidence is enough to convict the policeman who shot an unarmed fleeing perpetrator of a misdemeanor in the back with 8 bullets.
I have great empathy for people who believe the police unfairly target young black men. I do believe many innocent young black men are assaulted by policeman. But I also have empathy for the police who have to always be in fear of hidden weapons and the only way to question someone is to first make sure they don't have a hidden weapon. That leads to necessary unfair treatment. The key is not kill or harm an innocent person.
The police need to be accountable to the public and the public is not simply white voters. The public is everybody of all ethnicity. That is why it is important that people of all ethnicity vote. If minorities don't vote to elect people who care about this there will be no pressure on the police departments to respect citizens of all ethnicity equally.
Local police citizen relations are a local issue. Solutions need to be found at the local level. There is little the Federal level can beyond buying some equipment for the police.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Something Other Than a War Has to be the Solution for the Middle East
I hope this comes out coherent.
Israel was 5 years old when I was born to a Jewish mother. Growing up in the aftermath of WWII and the horrors of The Holocaust, I came to believe that the Jewish people deserved to have their homeland. Viewing the ceaseless wars over religion and developing a skepticism for religion, I turned away from faith, but not away from my belief that Israel needs to exist.
The Palestinians have now been without a state for 67 years. Over much of that period, they have not deserved a state. Yasar Arafat was a terrorist and a rotten manager of a state. The result, in combination with certain Israeli policies, was a lack of economic opportunity creating angry and frustrated young men. What do angry and frustrated young men do, they become terrorists and soldiers against their perceived enemy.
The U.S. destroyed the Sunni led Iraqi government which was the only government crazy enough to stand up to Iran, which other than Iraq, Turkey and Israel, is the only other proven military force in the region. So we should not be surprised that Iran is trying to exert some regional influence.
What did our war in Iraq accomplish? It put the Shiite's in charge and eliminated a Sunni counterbalance to Iran's Shiite led government. It created the basis for a Kurdish state and destroyed the Iraqi Army. 13 years later, all our training was for naught as the Iraqi Army cannot defeat ISIS without the assistance of the U.S. and Iran. Our war in Iraq also destroyed the economy in the Sunni regions creating angry and frustrated young men who formed ISIS.
Now I have no idea what the attraction of a caliphate government is but it seems to attract all the angry and frustrated Muslims who have no economic opportunity where they are and even attracts some who do have economic opportunity. It would seem to be a priority in future Middle East endeavors to avoid trashing economic opportunity and motivating young men to become terrorists.
It seems clear to me that we need to try some set of policies beyond destruction. I say that for both the U.S. and Israel. After 67 years of destruction, it is time to build up the Palestinian economy to create hope for the young so they don't become angry and frustrated. I know this will not be easy.
And this is why the U.S. has to choose trust and verification when it comes to Iranian nuclear ambitions. The U.S. has negotiated with the support of every other major economic power a way to monitor and limit Iranian nuclear activity. If the U.S. walks away from this without the support of the global community, the global community may well end the sanctions that have brought Iran to the negotiating table and made them willing to have their nuclear program monitored and limited.
The only other path the U.S. could follow is one that only Israel and Saudi Arabia support. That is bombing Iran to smithereens in an effort to destroy their nuclear capacity. But much of that is dispersed and buried underground so it cannot be bombed.
So those who advocate no trust for Iranian leadership need to be focused on two things: (i) Maintaining the support of the global community for sanctions if Iran does not comply and (ii) the consequences of any focused military action upon Iran.
It is very uncertain to see how military action would generate either regime change in Iran or a desire to end their nuclear program. All military action would do is sponsor rage, frustration and angry in the young men who want some economic success for themselves. Iran has a population of 75 million people and half are under the age of 35. Do we really want to turn them into the fodder of a Shiite version of ISIS or the PLO?
Destruction has not created security for Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Destruction has not discouraged young men from becoming terrorists and soldiers for a war against their perceived enemies.
It is time to use economic growth as a tool in our War on Terror. It does not mean anarchist acts will not occur, but except for Vladimir Putin who shoots down civilian airliners with impunity, the entire world hates anarchy and will fight it. What we need to do is limit the number of angry and frustrated young men.
That is why I believe in a policy toward Iran that has the support of the world. That means negotiate with them honestly, firmly and insuring that there is a means for verification. Ronald Reagan's belief's have been distorted over time by some, but he did believe in negotiation, he did believe in trusting his enemies, but he also believed in verification.
The alternative policy of distruction has little possibility of success and a certainty of poor outcomes that would fuel an already disastrous outcome for many in the Middle East from the Iraqi War. And the U.S. would own that as well.
The only way we could fight the Iraqi War was with the support of Kuwait and Turkey. How could we fight a war in Iran if Turkey and Kuwait are in turmoil? Would the Shiite's of Iraq still like the U.S. if we are attacking Iran? Israel is a small island in a very big sea of turmoil. More destruction is not a path to stability. In fact, I believe, it would only increase the instability many times over.
I hope Bibi Netanyahu and the GOP contemplate thoughts like I express here.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and the U.S. need a common policy if ISIS is to ever be defeated and economic opportunity rather than desires for a caliphate are to dominate young men's lives.
Israel was 5 years old when I was born to a Jewish mother. Growing up in the aftermath of WWII and the horrors of The Holocaust, I came to believe that the Jewish people deserved to have their homeland. Viewing the ceaseless wars over religion and developing a skepticism for religion, I turned away from faith, but not away from my belief that Israel needs to exist.
The Palestinians have now been without a state for 67 years. Over much of that period, they have not deserved a state. Yasar Arafat was a terrorist and a rotten manager of a state. The result, in combination with certain Israeli policies, was a lack of economic opportunity creating angry and frustrated young men. What do angry and frustrated young men do, they become terrorists and soldiers against their perceived enemy.
The U.S. destroyed the Sunni led Iraqi government which was the only government crazy enough to stand up to Iran, which other than Iraq, Turkey and Israel, is the only other proven military force in the region. So we should not be surprised that Iran is trying to exert some regional influence.
What did our war in Iraq accomplish? It put the Shiite's in charge and eliminated a Sunni counterbalance to Iran's Shiite led government. It created the basis for a Kurdish state and destroyed the Iraqi Army. 13 years later, all our training was for naught as the Iraqi Army cannot defeat ISIS without the assistance of the U.S. and Iran. Our war in Iraq also destroyed the economy in the Sunni regions creating angry and frustrated young men who formed ISIS.
Now I have no idea what the attraction of a caliphate government is but it seems to attract all the angry and frustrated Muslims who have no economic opportunity where they are and even attracts some who do have economic opportunity. It would seem to be a priority in future Middle East endeavors to avoid trashing economic opportunity and motivating young men to become terrorists.
It seems clear to me that we need to try some set of policies beyond destruction. I say that for both the U.S. and Israel. After 67 years of destruction, it is time to build up the Palestinian economy to create hope for the young so they don't become angry and frustrated. I know this will not be easy.
And this is why the U.S. has to choose trust and verification when it comes to Iranian nuclear ambitions. The U.S. has negotiated with the support of every other major economic power a way to monitor and limit Iranian nuclear activity. If the U.S. walks away from this without the support of the global community, the global community may well end the sanctions that have brought Iran to the negotiating table and made them willing to have their nuclear program monitored and limited.
The only other path the U.S. could follow is one that only Israel and Saudi Arabia support. That is bombing Iran to smithereens in an effort to destroy their nuclear capacity. But much of that is dispersed and buried underground so it cannot be bombed.
So those who advocate no trust for Iranian leadership need to be focused on two things: (i) Maintaining the support of the global community for sanctions if Iran does not comply and (ii) the consequences of any focused military action upon Iran.
It is very uncertain to see how military action would generate either regime change in Iran or a desire to end their nuclear program. All military action would do is sponsor rage, frustration and angry in the young men who want some economic success for themselves. Iran has a population of 75 million people and half are under the age of 35. Do we really want to turn them into the fodder of a Shiite version of ISIS or the PLO?
Destruction has not created security for Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Destruction has not discouraged young men from becoming terrorists and soldiers for a war against their perceived enemies.
It is time to use economic growth as a tool in our War on Terror. It does not mean anarchist acts will not occur, but except for Vladimir Putin who shoots down civilian airliners with impunity, the entire world hates anarchy and will fight it. What we need to do is limit the number of angry and frustrated young men.
That is why I believe in a policy toward Iran that has the support of the world. That means negotiate with them honestly, firmly and insuring that there is a means for verification. Ronald Reagan's belief's have been distorted over time by some, but he did believe in negotiation, he did believe in trusting his enemies, but he also believed in verification.
The alternative policy of distruction has little possibility of success and a certainty of poor outcomes that would fuel an already disastrous outcome for many in the Middle East from the Iraqi War. And the U.S. would own that as well.
The only way we could fight the Iraqi War was with the support of Kuwait and Turkey. How could we fight a war in Iran if Turkey and Kuwait are in turmoil? Would the Shiite's of Iraq still like the U.S. if we are attacking Iran? Israel is a small island in a very big sea of turmoil. More destruction is not a path to stability. In fact, I believe, it would only increase the instability many times over.
I hope Bibi Netanyahu and the GOP contemplate thoughts like I express here.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and the U.S. need a common policy if ISIS is to ever be defeated and economic opportunity rather than desires for a caliphate are to dominate young men's lives.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Kenya Needs to do Something about Al Shabab
How many times do you have to be attacked?
You either defend your people or you don't.
And why would any tourist travel there given their inability to defend their border and people?
You either defend your people or you don't.
And why would any tourist travel there given their inability to defend their border and people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)