Writing Left

Getting Credit

2011-09-09T17:34:00.000-05:00

The federal government is in a no win situation when it comes to providing federal aid. If it chose to forego giving Texas money to assist with the fires, it would be blamed for not supporting the State - as it was when it failed to quickly respond to the disaster after Katrina. If it does give money, Texans will refuse to give it credit and continue to believe, falsely, that they are self sufficient and don't need federal assistance. What the federal government needs to do is get a better PR group on it's side, so it gets credit for the things it assists with and people can start appreciating what their tax dollars are spent on. This might get people to start voting based upon the reality of where their benefits are coming from opposed to the false belief that they get nothing from their federal taxes.

For instance after the stimulus bill was passed, the government put signs up on highways which were being built due to federal money financing it. This gave the government credit for it's spending on a local level. Similarly, it needs to find a way to reinforce with Texans that they are not going it alone; rather federal employees have been on the ground since March ready to assist with the fires and have worked along side state and local employees to quell the fires. Yet, the elected representatives from that state seek to kill all federal aid.

Maybe if the voters start to realize what they will be without if their elected representatives were to prevail in their endeavors to kill all federal aid, then people will stop voting for people that want to take away the benefits they get.

Government Intervention

2011-09-06T22:04:00.000-05:00

It certainly seems mean spirited, as no one wishes harm on other citizens, but since the Texas leaders, including Governor Perry, claim that government has no business being involved in our lives, maybe the US Government should refuse to provide federal assistance to Texas for the current wildfires. If they want to go it alone, then let them do just that. FEMA should not be responding to tragedies in states where the people do not want them to be. Such federal assistance can be reserved for places such as NY and VT, states that have not rejected federal government involvement. This is a matter of States Rights - it is the right of the state to reject federal assistance and so long as the state leaders are going to criticize US Government involvement, then they should not receive any.

Open Letter To President Obama On Tax Burdens

2011-09-06T21:50:00.002-05:00

As the congressional committee meets to determine how to decrease the national debt, the White House needs to make the moral argument on why taxes need to be increased, especially on big business, the rich and super-rich - it is their obligation to repay the money spent on them. The debt that is being decreased is for the expenses that the US has already spent. The items money has been spent on include two recent wars, highways, safe airways via financing the FAA, financial bailouts, and other federal government obligations. Those who have benefited the most from these expenses are the corporations, the rich and the super-rich, and now they need to pay back their fair share of the debt that has been accrued.

No one benefits more from good roads than do employers. Workers need to go to work, products need to be transported from place to place, shipping harbors need to be dredged and made safe for passage, the airways need to be organized and safe for cargo transport. All of these measures allow business to be conducted. If the federal government ceased spending money on these things, then businesses - large and small - would cease to operate efficiently. The federal government has allowed businesses to work efficiently for many years by spending large amounts on updating roads and bridges, on maintaining the safety of shipping harbors, and on managing the nations airways. Accordingly there is no reason that businesses, the rich and super-rich who have all benefited from these projects should not be "burdened" with paying for the past payments on these projects.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will benefit corporations as well. Big oil companies are seeking to make profits from having access to the Iraqi oilfields, and now the Libyan oilfields. Exxon, the most profitable company in history, will surely benefit from the billions spent on the Iraq war. There is no reason that Exxon and it's shareholders should not, through increased taxes, help pay for the war. Further, as ships were attacked by Somali pirates, the companies shipping products through the straits looked to the US Navy to protect them - meanwhile many companies were avoiding taxes by flagging their ships in Liberia and Panama. The shipping companies should pay their share of the military protection they received - alternatively they could request naval protection from Liberia and Panama. The US military has been good for US business and those who have benefited the most from the military interventions should pay for theses expenses.

The benefits to big business as a result of the financial bailouts for the banks and automotive industry is well documented, and those who run these organizations should pay their share of taxes to offset the costs to the government.

Big Government benefits Big Business much more than people give it credit for, and it would behoove the White House to start making this argument in response to the GOP's false claims concerning taxes and business. Warren Buffet started the discussion in the recent New York Times Op-Ed piece. Now the White House needs to carry the conversation further to the obligation businesses, the rich and super-rich have to repay the government for the investment it has given to them over the past several decades, so they could do business, flourish and become the rich and super-rich.

Not a New Decade

2010-01-03T17:07:00.002-05:00

In politics, sports and other arenas, people are talking about the past decade and trying to characterize it one way or another. The bad news for them is that the last decade is not over. Decades run from the years ending in 1 until and through the years ending in 0. In other words, the current decade started on January 1, 2001 and will end on December 31, 2010. January 1, 2011 starts the next decade, not January 1, 2010. This is apparent when one considers that we started counting years in year 1, not year 0; therefore, the first decade was from year 1 to year 10. The same continues to be true as we count above year 2000. While we may be in a hurry to end the past ten years with two recessions and other horrible events, unfortunately, we are stuck with it for another year no matter how much wishing or fuzzy math we want to apply to it.

Healthcare Insurance Debate

2009-12-11T11:45:00.002-05:00

While we do not yet know what it is the Senate is going to propose concerning its Health Insurance Reform bill, there is some speculation that it will not include a public option. We anticipate that it will require that everyone have health insurance, that insurance companies can not refuse coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and possibly remove caps on annual and lifetime coverage amounts. However, if these items are included and there is no public option, then the US Congress will be giving the health insurance industry a license to steal.

If there is not going to be some control on what the cost for the coverages will be, the industry will say, "Having to cover everyone under these circumstances is expensive and the premiums will reflect the cost." They will say this whether it is true or not. Then our current 15 - 20% annual increases will seem small when they start ramping up the rates and blaming the legislation for it. The end result will be people will not be able to afford the coverage and will have to go uninsured. Small businesses will not be able to afford the premiums that will be charged and will have to drop coverage for their employees, who in turn will not be able to afford the individual coverage and will have to go uninsured. Without the public option, the problem of the uninsured is going to worsen, not be cured.

Peace Prize

2009-12-10T09:47:00.003-05:00

Much ado has been made regarding President Obama getting the Noble Peace Prize. Many have said that he has not done anything to earn it, which may be true. However, some committee in Oslo obviously disagrees, and we are required to accept their determination regarding this.

What is not being discussed is that the award is likely much more of a rebuke of the GWB policies than an endorsement of President Obama's actions to date. Certainly, Europe was not a fan of our last President, and Obama is much more adored by our neighbors to the East. Nonetheless, it seems that the award to the newly elected President so quickly after taking office speaks more to what his predecessor blindly did regarding the wars than what Obama has done or will do regarding them. Just as importantly, Obama stated during the campaign and recently regarding the Afghanistan War that he is looking to reduce troop numbers and initiate a complete withdrawal as soon as possible, this had to make the Committee happy.

The award may also be a message to President Obama that there are high expectations for him regarding the two wars that he inherited.

No doubt after today that the world is watching.

Deficit Spending

2006-12-02T11:29:00.000-05:00

There is a correlation between the tax rate and the revenue generated. If a tax rate is too high or too low, then the government does not maximize the tax revenue it could achieve. This theory is called the Laffer Curve, which has previously been discussed. The same kind of principal applies to the amount of tax received and the amount of spending in which the government engages.

If the government receives too little revenue, it spends more than it receives. If it receives too much money through tax revenue, then it spends too much. The end result in either case is deficit spending. There is, however, a solution. If the tax rate is too low, as it currently is, the tax rate needs to be increased to prevent overspending. If the tax rate is too high, the tax rate would need to be decreased to prevent overspending. Apparently, the ideal tax rate to prevent deficit spending is 19%.**

The rationale for the required tax rate is that Congress and the public need to feel the pinch of government. If the perceived cost of government is that it is cheap, then overspending results. In more micro terms, if a person has a high credit limit and low monthly payment, then it does not seem to cost a lot to spend a lot so debt is incurred. If the cost of high spending is perceived to be expensive (a higher monthly credit card payment), then it is less likely that a person or Congress will over spend. If the spending curve was graphically superimposed on the Laffer Curve, it would show an increase in spending by .15% for every 1% of tax rate reduction and a decrease in spending of .15% for every 1% of tax increase.

Many said that the balanced budgets during the Clinton Administration were a result of the GOP Congress being so disciplined. Considering the deficit spending that the GOP has engaged in while controlling the Congress and White House, this is obviously not the case. Rather, it was the tax increases that the first Bush and Clinton Administrations imposed that controlled spending. The reason for today's deficit spending is the ill conceived tax cuts that were given to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 because now the cost of government seems low so it is easy for Congress to continue to spend too much money. Had these cuts not gone into place, the perceived cost of government would have remained high and the spending would have remained under control, and the debt imposed upon the future generations would not have been imposed.

To prevent future generations from being saddled with continued debt, this new Democratic Congress needs to raise taxes to maximize revenue and eliminate deficit spending. Taxes need to be raised and the debts which have accumulated over these past six years need to be paid immediately so that the American Public is not saddled with the significant debt and high tax rates that will be necessary in the future to correct the fiscal mismanagement done by the Bush Administration.

* The diagram is from Wikipedia
** More information on this can be obtained in the June 2006 Atlantic Monthly; however, a subscription to the website is required.

GW's Tax Increase

2006-11-30T11:50:00.000-05:00

The deficit spending that the GOP has engaged in over the past six years has direct and immediate impacts on the American population. Everyone is talking about saddling future generations with taxes to pay the debt that has been incurred today, but Americans are having to pay the equivalent of higher taxes today to prevent themselves from being hit with even bigger taxes tomorrow to compensate for the deficit spending.

All financial advisors say that you need to start planning for your retirement as early as possible. The benefit of compound interest and maximizing your contributions to a 401(k) or IRA will assist in ensuring that you will be able to pay for your retirement when that day comes. If you do not start early, the compound interest will not have long enough to provide maximum benefits, and if you do not contribute enough money to the retirement plan, you will not get enough compounding to total the amount necessary for retirement. However, there is another element to this that is not being discussed: tomorrow's tax rate.

Today, you can put your money into a traditional 401(k) or IRA. Either allow you to deduct the contribution from your taxes. Thus, you get the benefit of saving pre-tax dollars and allowing the compounding effect to occur until you withdraw the money. When you withdraw the money after retirement, you will be required to pay tax on all the money withdrawn (contributions and earnings). The theory is that when you are working, you are going to be in a higher tax bracket than when you are retired and have no working income. This may not come true. Due to the deficit spending this administration has embarked on, when today's 30-somethings start retiring, Congress may need to significantly raise the tax rates to pay for the Social Security IOUs that have been accumulating since the Reagan Administration and crescendoing during this Administration as well as pay for all of the accumulated debt that has been incurred during the past six years. The end result is that today's tax benefit will become tomorrow's tax burden. Those who benefitted by deferring the tax consequences of the traditional 401(k) and IRA will get hit with a higher tax burden than if they had originally saved post-tax dollars.

Many retirement advisors are telling people to save money in a Roth IRA or the newly created Roth 401(k). These are post-tax dollars saved and when they are withdrawn no tax is paid. The net result is that people are having to pay more in taxes today, by not getting the tax deferred traditional retirement plans, so they can avoid having to pay the possible excruciatingly high tax that will be required tomorrow to pay for the fiscal mismanagement we are currently under.

No one explained to the tax payers that the tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003 were going to immediately increase the tax burden of the middle class. This is the bait and switch in which the GOP consistently engages. Deceive the public into thinking that they will benefit by sending them a check for $300.00 and then increase their effective tax rate significantly, but don't tell them what you are doing until it is too late for them to stop you from giving significant benefits your rich country club buddies. Worse yet, most people do not have access to a Roth 401(k), so they cannot even protect themselves from getting hurt upon retirement. Shame on the Administration for continuing to undercut the middle class in this manner.

Sideline Suits

2006-11-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

Last Monday during the Monday Night Football Game, Jack Del Rio the Jacksonville Jaguars Head Coach was wearing a business suit on the sidelines. One of the commentators mentioned that there are league rules the prohibit coaches from wearing suits on the sidelines, which apparently is true; however, Del Rio got an exemption in order to wear one. The San Francisco Coach, Mike Nolan, has received a similar exemption. These exemptions are for only a couple of games. The idea of prohibiting coaches from wearing suits is ridiculous and needs to be reevaluated.

George Steinbrenner, New York Yankees owner, requires that all of his baseball players cut their hair appropriately and cannot have beards. Additionally, each of them must wear a suit when they are traveling to a game. Steinbrenner requires that his players show respect and look respectable when they are seen in public. This is a stark contrast from what the NFL requires of its representatives.

The NFL does not allow suits on the sidelines because it wants the free promotion from the wearing of hats and sweatshirts. NFL Properties wants to sell its wears and apparently suits do not accomplish this. There is more to the game than how much money is paid for jerseys and other paraphenalia. The coaches and players are role models for many, and the way they look and act has a direct impact on the way others look and act.

A stroll through the criminal court on sentencing day is an indication of how influential the sports franchises are. When one is trying to make a good impression in an effort to obtain lienency, what they wear is important. However, virtually none of those who have been arrested and pled out to a crime or been found guilty are wearing a suit. Some are in sports jerseys while others are in jeans and a t-shirt. While many of the sports jerseys cost more than most dress shirts, they are not a substitute for a shirt and tie when that is what is appropriate. Educating people when a suit is appropriate and when street attire is appropriate is important. Having football coaches look and act respectfully when they are on camera could go a long way in providing this necessary education, just as Steinbrenner requires of his players.

New Late Policy

2006-11-26T09:41:00.000-05:00

The next time you are stuck in traffic that you did not anticipate on your way to work and end up being a few minutes late consider the new Wal-Mart lateness policy. Wal-Mart employees, if they are going to be absent or late for work, no less than an hour before their shift starts, must call a central number. At that time they will receive a confirmation number and then they must call their manager and provide that confirmation number to the manager. If this is not done, or not done at least an hour prior to the shift begins, the employee will receive a demerit. After a certain number of demerits discipline including termination will result.

This is an egregious policy for even the most responsible of people. All parents know how likely it is that a child will not cooperate in getting ready in the morning and getting dropped off at the daycare resulting in being a few minutes late to the office. This cannot be anticipated an hour in advance. Also, anyone who commutes to the office knows that unexpected traffic can occur, causing some ont to sometimes up to an hour late, and despite appropriate due diligence a person can be late a number of times in any given time period due to the unexpected.

Now couple the ordinary difficulties of getting to work on time with the people who work at Wal-Mart. The low wages the Wal-Mart pays can result in people not owning a telephone because they cannot afford one. This prevents them from calling the required number an hour before work. Additionally, a number of people who work low wage jobs do not have reliable vehicles or take public transportation such as a bus to work. The car can unexpectedly break down and public transportation in many areas is far from being reliable. These kinds of problems are not known an hour prior to work. They are also confronted with childcare issues and the standard traffic congestion that we are all confronted with.

This policy appears to be a system designed to have employees live in fear of losing their jobs. It is nothing more than a strong arm tactic so that managers can laud something over the heads of already demoralized employees. Having employees live in fear of their continued employment is not conducive to having a productive workforce. It is when employees feel comfortable in their surroundings and feel that they are contributing to something good that they will have the incentive to work hard opposed to doing just enough to get by. Wal-Mart apparently does not seek to have such an environment.

Of course, the more animosity it shows toward its employees, the more likely it is that the employees will leave and less likely Wal-Mart will be successful in finding replacements. Word gets around about where is a good and bad place to work. The good employees will know they do not want to work in a place like Wal-Mart and the bad employees will be late often enough that they will be fired. That does not leave too many people to work at the store.

Employers need to start taking lessons from Wal-Mart as to what they should not do such as skimp on health benefits, continuously cut wages to benefit the bottomline and now force employees to live in fear of their jobs by instituting bad beauricratic policies that are bad on paper and bad in practice.

The Big Three Healthcare

2006-11-23T09:43:00.000-05:00

Recently there was a meeting of the Big Three with GW. While the agenda was not provided to the public, it was speculated that one of the topics was going to be the pinch the car manufacturers are feeling due to their healthcare costs. As previously discussed in this blog, GM has to increase its sticker price by approximately $1,500 per vehicle to pay for health insurance for its workers and retirees. This places GM at a business disadvantage since its major competitors, Toyota and Honda, do not have the $5 billion per year health insurance bill and can price their vehicles at a lower cost. Business is finally realizing that they are at a disadvantage due to the current health insurance system. Until universal healthcare is implemented in the United States, U.S. companies will not be able to compete in a global market. Maybe the politicians will begin to listen now that the business community is supporting universal healthcare since it really is good for business and the economy.

Box Store Healthcare

2006-11-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

Maryland passed a law requiring that stores with a specific number of emplolyees and making a specific amount of sales was required to provide healthcare to its employees. The law was pointed at the box stores that pay subprime wages and cuts costs by not offering healthcare to its employees. The law was relatively recently struck down by a Federal District Court and Maryland has taken an appeal. The Federal District Court determined that a federal law, ERISA, preempted the state law and, therefore, the state law could not contradict or alter the ERISA requirements. While the Court may be correct on the legal analysis and it may be upheld on appeal, the issue has been squarely confronted by the states and calls to arms will likely rise to the Federal level requiring that Congress act.

A Berkeley Study concluded that tax payers are subsidizing Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart employees do not receive health insurance and when they get sick they end up at the emergency room. (for more infomation on Wal-Mart Healthcare) Joe Taxpayer ends up flipping the bill. Thus, the cost for low prices is higher taxes to pay for the corporate subsidies Wal-Mart receives. Maryland's law sought to end these subsidies.

A number of other states were considering similar laws and they likely will not pass these laws until resolution is brought to the Maryland case. At that time, they may try to tailor new laws to the court ruling or they may start to put pressure on the Congress to amend ERISA to allow for the state mandates or they may call upon Congress to pass a similar law to Maryland's. Of course the latter is better than the former since it would impose a universal solution opposed to the piecemeal solution that would result from state by state laws. Further, Wal-Mart and other companies would be knowledgeable of all of its obligations under a universal federal law opposed to having to interpret each state law and trying to find the loopholes available in the various state laws, which will inevitably be found and exploited (better to pay the lawyers than the workers apparently.)

With a Democratic Congress Wal-Mart should be concerned that this type of legislation will start to get traction. While the Democrats are not enemies of business as they were once perceived to be a popular policy change such as this is the very type of issue they campaigned on to get elected and the new Congress should take this issue up as one of its first pieces of legislation. In the meantime, Maryland is right to continue the legal battle and attempt to salvage its healthcare law.

Why They Lost

2006-11-18T16:44:00.000-05:00

This administration apparently believes that the voters are stupid. Rumsfeld's recent statement that the the strategy in Iraq is "too complex" for mere mortals to understand shows the contempt this administration has for the voting public. To assume that those who have a vested interest in the strategy, namely those who may be called to serve and those with family members serving, and those who follow the administration military decisions, are too stupid to understand the strategy is fatal to any elected official.

The American public is a lot of thing including apathetic, disinterested, busy and suffering at the hands of government decisions to cut back on various social programs. One thing it is not is stupid. The strategies that are being implemented in Iraq are far from being too complex for the average American to understand. There is nothing confusing about Cheney's statement that the insurgents are in their last throws, Bush's statement that he want's Bin Laden dead or alive and his statement during the debates that he does not give Bin Laden much thought, or other administration statements indicating that (1) we should expect immediate result from their brilliant decisions and (2) there is no coherent strategy except the "stay the course" mentality that has been the policy from the beginning.

The GOP has blindly followed the administration into the war. At no time has the GOP controlled Congress or Senate tried to call the administration to account for any of its actions. There were never questions about why the administration was firing generals who said things that were true but not part of the scrpt they wanted to read from. There were never questions as to why the soldiers were not being provided the proper equipment. There was never a question as to why Haliburton and Bechtel were receiving huge contracts. There were never questions as to why the cost has topped $10 billion per month. This lack of independent thought by the legislature and the contempt the administration shows the general public comes through in an election. The results of this past election provided the just dues to the party that does not believe in the people's ability to question the war and understand that those who are in charge of the military do not know what they are doing.

Potatoes From A Box

2006-11-05T17:08:00.000-05:00

We are all busy. With the boss’s demands, the long commute, shuttling kids between activities, community service and other obligations, the day is stretched thin, and as a result sacrifices are made. Everyone needs to prioritize. They need to determine what activities they are going to focus on and what they are going to drop by the leeway.

For many families, dinner together has been dropped. When dad works late, mom is picking up junior from soccer practice and sister is being shuttled with the neighbor friend to dance class, many families do not have an hour in the four o’clock to eight o’clock zone to get together at a single dinner table. This is a reasonable sacrifice considering everyone can have a healthful dinner without sitting at a single table at the same time; however, if marketing and items in a grocery store are any indication, many families are not ensuring that there is a healthful meal to be eaten for dinner.

Among the ready to eat items being advertised is a bagged pot roast. Apparently everything someone needs for a pot roast is in the bag: the roast, vegetables, gravy mix, potatoes, everything. All the person has to do is add water and throw it into the crockpot and go. There is something seriously wrong with this concept. Pot roast is about the easiest meal that anyone can make. Cut up a few vegetables, wash and slice a few potatoes and throw the roast into a crock pot for ten hours. It is perfect for the busy family. It can be put into the pot in the morning before anyone goes to work, and it will be hot and cooked when the first person gets home. The simplicity of the meal makes the idea that some families are making it out of a bag appalling.

Of course pot roast is not the only easy to make item people are buying in a ready made form. Potatoes have for years been available in an instant form. Either through power or sliced and dehydrated for potatoes au gratin these may have been one of the first ready to eat boxed meal sold to the masses. It is disappointing since these are easy items to make. Why is it that we have concluded that we do not have ten minutes to boil some potatoes or slice a few potatoes and add the basic ingredients needed for potatoes au gratin?

These kinds of food items are hurting us more than they are helping. First they cost more than the raw ingredients. Second they are all high in preservatives and sodium and other food stuffs that nutritionists and doctors warn us against eating. By having bad eating habits, we are reducing our efficiency at work causing us to work longer hours and be away from home more. It is only through proper nutrition that a healthful living can be achieved. Moreover, it is unlikely that we as a society are actually so busy that we cannot spend the ten or so minutes that are necessary to make basic healthful meals for ourselves and families. There is just no reason why we need to continue eating potatoes out of a box.

School Days

2006-11-03T12:15:00.000-05:00

A typical school day for public school highschool students begins slightly before 8:00 a.m. and goes until about 2:30 p.m. This is less than seven hours of class time minus time for the students to eat lunch. Thus, there is approximately five hours of actual education time for students and a number of high school students have a period or two for a study hall during which they are not receiving lectures. One of the basis for justifying "No Child Left Behind" was to determine which schools were failing and assist the United States in rising in the international statistics. Creating new tests will not benefit the schools; rather, we need a complete overhaul of the way we address the education process. First we need to start spending time educating students. A six hour day with study halls is not sufficient time for students to be educated. This is a nominal part of the day and the amount of time students can spend learning needs to increase. There is no reason that students cannot have their academic day go from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The second basic change that needs to occur is the academic year needs to be lengthened. Most schools have only 180 days of class. Students get holidays throughout scattered throughout the year and are out of class by the end of June. With so much time out of class, students are not reaching their maximum potential of learning. There is no reason for a mid-winter break or a spring break and the reasons for having long summer breaks is obsolete. We are no longer an agricultural society and the students are not needed on the farm. Thus, we need to make the academic year a minimum of 220 days with only a short break (two weeks) between academic years. This will allow students to spend more time in the classroom learning opposed to out of the classroom forgetting their texts.

If we want to rise in the international rankings we need to look at what the other countries are doing to out educate the US. The most basic items are that they require the students to actually sit in class during the day, not just a nominal portion of the day, and they require that the students spend the majority of the year in the classroom, not just six months. Lets require our students to start spending time learning opposed to being on break and start trying to compete on a real basis with the international community with our education system.

School Is For Academics

2006-10-31T19:35:00.000-05:00

Friday Night Lights is a fictional account of a Texas highschool football team. Some but not much of the show portrays the students’ lives in the classroom and in the school halls. What is evident from the show is that football is an important part of the highschool experience, at least for the players and possibly the cheerleading squad. While the show is a fictional account, the impact of school sports in actual schools is real, and much of it is adverse for the majority of students. It is time to reconsider whether sports should remain part of public education institutions.

A minority of students in either a highschool or university actually partake in extracurricular sports; however, all students are impacted. The after school games are scheduled for times when travel to and from the event will put the child home at a "reasonable" hour. The academic schedule is designed to prevent the athletes from missing too much class time. The end result is that classes start earlier in the day then they would if the sports schedule was not accounted for. Students who are highschool and university age have brains that do not function fully until later in the morning, yet due in large part to the athletic schedule, schools start at 7:30 a.m. or earlier. Thus the first hour and a half to two hours of school are unproductive because the students’ brains are not yet awake. Worse yet, a number of students throughout the nation have a bus ride of an hour or more, which requires that they get out of bed before 6:00 a.m. to prepare for school and catch the public school bus. Requiring that students get up this early is detrimental to their learning abilities. This basis alone is sufficient to justify removing sports from school or at least adjusting the academic schedule to be less beholden to the athletic schedule.

Here in New Jersey schools are funded through property taxes. At least one half of a resident’s property tax goes to the public school districts. A not insubstantial amount of a school budget goes to the funding of extracurricular sports. By removing this budget item a number of books and possibly additional teachers could be paid for. Again, a minority of students are directly benefitted by school sports in comparison to the number of students in any given school; however, all students are having a reduction in the number of teachers, books and quality of education materials they receive due to the athletic budget.

Academics suffer as a result of sports. There are a number of incidents throughout the country whereby a budget battle erupts within a board of education or a budget is voted down by the electorate and libraries, arts, music and other classes are cut from the budget in a supposed attempt to balance the budget. Rarely does the athletic budget get cut. Such acts by board of educations are purely political. They believe that a budget will pass if the electorate believes that the alternative is cutting academic programs.

The United States lags far behind other first world nations in the quality of education that public school students are receiving. One thing that needs to be addressed is how to raise the quality. By requiring schools to be for education opposed to having a major focus on sports as currently exists, the US education quality will rise. By starting classes at hours that are more conducive to a student’s education abilities and funding education opposed to sports, this can be achieved.

Alternate Path

2006-10-23T20:01:00.000-05:00

Report after report concludes that the middle-class is being squeezed out of being able to afford college costs. As previously argued in this blog, (Middle Class Tax; Personal Savings Rate; The Lost Generation) much of this debt is a result of less governmental assistance for students to pay for college and a shift from need-based assistance to loans. Coupled with a 375% increase in tuition and fees between 1982 and 2005, the financial shift has had a disproportionate impact on the middle and lower class. With such staggering numbers and no change in sight, its time for the marketplace establish new options.

Colleges do not produce students who are ready to work in the marketplace. Prior to Airborne Express being purchased by another company it had a fairly large computer programming department. Whenever it hired a new computer programer who had recently graduated from college the company wrote off the person’s first year salary because that person was going to spend more time in training, at a significant cost to the company, than performing actual work. If the private company is burdened with training the employee, then there is little or no difference between the current student and someone without a college education that has some basic background in computer programming.

The marketplace needs to establish an alternative to the overly priced college education that does not prepare someone for work. An intense two year program in computer programming which is conducted in cooperation with local and national businesses to determine a curriculum, that is cheaper than the current college tuition, will be better for the students and businesses than the current system. In addition to providing the students the actual necessary tools, not just the ones some academic thinks is necessary, by having business connections and cooperation will assist the students in establishing connections with possible employers and creates a greater chance of the students becoming employed.

This educational model will benefit all. The students will have less costs since the education process will be for fewer years and the business community will benefit since it will not have to retrain new employees coming from these institutions. It is time to reevaluate the educational process and start preparing students for the work they are going to do upon graduation instead of preparing them for a life of student loan debt.

Class Warfare

2006-10-23T19:52:00.000-05:00

For years we heard the Republicans explain that President Clinton was passing balanced budgets because there was a Republican Congress. However, now that there is a GOP dominated government – White House, Congress and Supreme Court – we see the most fiscally irresponsible government this nation has had in generations. Their actions show that the balanced budgets of the 1990s was due solely to the Democratic leadership of President Clinton and had nothing to do with a Republican Congress.

In 1993, President Clinton passed an economic package by a single vote in the Senate, which was cast by Vice President Gore. From that point on, the government was on a defined economic plan that over the course of five years resulted in balance budgets being submitted to the Congress and budget surpluses being established. The fiscal discipline extended to President Clinton vetoing irresponsible bills such as the repeal the Estate Tax. President Clinton vetoed the bill after it was delivered to the White House by a farmer on a tractor. The GOP argued that it is the farmers and small business owners who were hurt by the Estate Tax, yet despite this argument neither the farming lobby nor the GOP could show one farmer who lost his farm due to the tax. It was just a give away to the rich, and President Clinton did the responsible thing by vetoing it.

In contrast the House of Representatives, among other things, passed a $50 billion spending cut package. The spending cuts include reducing funding for food stamps, student loan subsidies, farmer subsidies, child care assistance, and medicare funding. The Senate passed a $60 billion tax cut package, most of these tax cuts were for the nation’s wealthy. These bills as a whole required the poor and middle class to sacrifice their well-being for the sole benefit of the rich. Ultimately, it will be the poor and middle-class who will have to pay the large deficits that will result since the rich are on track to pay no taxes whatsoever.

The biggest disappointment with these actions is that it was the government that created the middle class, and now it is the government that is going to destroy the middle class. After World War II, the GI Bill was created. Tens of thousands of soldiers where able to go to school when they returned from Europe and the Pacific. Also, the government created programs for veterans to obtain affordable mortgages so they could purchase their first homes. Through programs like these, the vets became the first solid middle class this nation had ever had.

Since WW II, the middle class has relied upon the government to allow it to continue to exist. Access to college through student loans, PELL grants and other financing mechanisms has allowed the middle class to send their children to college. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been integral in ensuring that interest rates would consistently be low enough and stable enough for the middle class to get mortgages, and the one tax shelter the middle class has access to is the tax deduction for mortgage interest - this is a tax deduction that a panel has recommended having removed from the tax code because it gives too much money to too many people.

All of this assistance will soon be gone due to the GOP’s actions. When the assistance disappears so will the core of the middle class. Additionally, there will be unsustainable deficits left in their wake and those who used to make up the middle class will have the burden of paying off the deficits which destroyed their livelihoods in the first place. Ultimately, there will not be enough money to reduce the debt; therefore, there will not be enough money to reestablish the middle class either. If the GOP is left in control of the government, the only ones who will suffer will be those who once thought they were living a comfortable life.

Predictions

2006-10-19T13:17:00.000-05:00

Last March I commented that the Democrats could not take over Congress because the electorial math did not work out - there just were not enough competative seats for the Democrats to get fifteen new seats. While that may still be true, it is a lot more exciting and at least possible that fifteen or more GOP incumbents will be ousted.

The election gets much more exciting if one pays attention to specific races. For instance, two time incumbent Mike Ferguson who is a hardcore Bush follower and about as far to the right as Rick Santorum to the West is in a tight race with Linda Stender. The New York times says that the district is leaning Ferguson, but some polls have it as a statistical dead heat.

The district has been cleverly drawn to support the GOP candidates by incorporating much of the western part of New Jersey. So the fact that there is a possibility that Ferguson will lose is a significant statement of the local and national political sentiment.

This of course should be contrasted with what is thought to be a more liberal district to the north, which ironically has an even more conservative GOP incumbent, Scott Garrett. He is being challenged by Paul Aronsohn, who held a position in government with the Clinton administration and Governor McGreevey's administration. It does not appear that it is going to be a close election there regardless of the reasons for Aronsohn's strong political resume.

What is known, is that November 7 is going to be a very interesting night, one that should be watched closely by all.

A Few Simple Words

2006-09-15T10:35:00.000-05:00

In the course of history some of the most powerful statements have been made by using a minimal number of words. General Colin Powell, in his letter to Senator John McCain, has once again achieved this remarkable feat.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against
terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

In all of the blogs that have been discussing this issue, it could not have been said any better.

New Definitions

2006-09-13T21:42:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, President Bush declared that some of the people he decreed to be the top terrorists who had been captured by the United States were going to be transferred to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He also stated that these top terrorists were going to be put on trial for their actions now that their use in interrogations has been exhausted. The problem is the tribunal process implemented by the White House was overruled by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the Congress is the governmental body that needed to implement the tribunal process; the President was not authorized to act as he did. The Court also determined that the Geneva Convention applies to all aspects of the so called "War on Terrorism" including the black ops prisons where these people were held.

The relevance of the later determination is that the secret prisons, which the White House denied existed and accused journalists of treason for having disclosed, engage in torture tactics to acquire information. However, these techniques violate "Common Article Three," which is a general article that is in all of the Geneva Conventions. It prohibits, among other things, "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." Bush claims that these are vague and undefined terms that the US Congress needs to define; however, the White House is wrong to make this allegation.

While the terms do not have definitions set forth in the Treaties themselves, there are international tribunals which have interpreted these treaties and these interpretations are internationally recognized. This is the same as the interpretation of vague statutes that Congress drafts. Once the courts interpret statutory language, that becomes binding on all acting under the statute. The Treaties have been interpreted and these interpretations are binding on all governments that are signatories to the Treaties, including the United States. Just like individual states are not allowed to pass laws declaring that they are going to interpret a federal statute different than the federal courts have interpreted it, nations are not allowed to pass laws with different definitions than those which have been established by international tribunals. Thus any interpretation by the White House or the Congress which deviates from the international norm of Common Article Three is a violation of the Treaty.

Violating a treaty is significant. Treaties signed by the United States become the law of the land. The only laws in the United States that are given greater weight than a treaty is the United States Constitution itself. No statute can overrule a treaty and violating a treaty is virtually the same as committing a constitutional violation. Thus, the White House and the Congress are committing violations of the magnitude of a constitutional violation by refusing to follow the Geneva Convention and trying to manipulate the language to meet the White House’s nefarious desires regarding it.

Committing constitutional violations rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors which justify impeachment.

Market Manipulation

2006-09-02T20:15:00.000-05:00

Tough times for BP. There is an investigations into Prudhoe Bay and a recent court decision finding that it manipulated propane prices, a lawsuit is about to go to trial regarding an oil refinery explosion and now it is being investigated for manipulating oil and gas prices. It comes as no surprise that an oil company might manipulate its prices. With oil companies recording record profits and the cost per barrel of oil not being in direct relation with the prices at the pump. As has been previously discussed, prior to Hurricane Katrina, gas prices went up faster than the cost per barrel and then as the prices came down, they did so out of sync with the price of a barrel of oil. All of this likely occurred due to manipulation, and it should have been ferreted out long before this.

Oil companies have finally established the perfect storm. There is a virtual monopoly on all oil production, refining and sales in the United States. The five major companies have reported the highest corporate profits in history, yet people are comfortable that they are playing by the rules, not taking advantage of their market dominance. While they may be playing by the rules, the rules are what they decided they are. The government has gotten out of the way of these companies. The current administration has given the oil companies a blank check; Congress has yelled at the oil companies in hearings telling them to stop price gouging, but they have done nothing more, no winfall tax has been imposed, no regulations regarding the production and pricing have been put into place and no one is doing anything to prevent the environmental disasters that are befalling the areas where there is drilling - worse, there is a push to open up new protected areas for drilling like ANWAR and national parks in Utah and other states have been opened for exploratory drilling.

So long as the oil companies are allowed to decide how they are going to operate and no checks on their authority is imposed, they will of course use their information on the drilling side to manipulate prices to ensure the greatest profits. As long as the companies are allowed to control the drilling and distribution of oil and gas, they will be able to use the information on both sides of the production line to maximize profits to the consumer’s detriment. Rest assured the stock holders are not making enough on their investment to cover their new gas and oil prices. Exxon’s price is up about 55% over the past two years, so the profits are not going to the investors, but rather to the corporate fat cats.

BP is not the only company that is using its inside information to manipulate the oil prices, but it is the only one that is currently being investigated. The question is what will be done when the investigation is completed. Will BP be required to disgorge their profits and will comprehensive reform be put into place, or will the company receive a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue performing business as usual. It is likely that no real consequences will result from this and everyone will continue as usual, the oil companies will continue to record record profits, and the average person will continue to feel the wallet pressures of the inflated prices at the pump that allows the record profits to continue soaring.

Middle-Class Tax

2006-08-24T21:01:00.000-05:00

Recently, Congress voted not to raise the minimum wage. In typical congressional fashion, riders were attached to the minimum wage bill, but one rider received more attention than others. The GOP attached a rider that would have required the repeal of the estate tax. At the same time Congressmen were voting to raise the wage that must be paid to the nations lowest paid workers, it was also voting to make the richest of people richer by allowing them to avoid the estate tax.

The estate tax already exempts the first million dollars of an estate and affects only the richest 2% of all Americans. Nonetheless, the GOP has been relentless in trying to destroy this tax. It passed a bill that was vetoed by President Clinton and in the tax reform bill that passed in 2001, it raised the cap significantly and actually eliminates the tax for one year prior to the law’s sunset. Since then, the GOP has been trying to make the repeal permanent.

The GOP spends a great deal of its time trying to convince middle America that they are supporters of the little guys and that they are looking out for the middle-class. The rider on the minimum wage bill proves otherwise. There was no indication that the GOP was interested in changing the parameters of who is required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which is a tax that is unintentionally subsuming more and more middle-class Americans. Rather, the GOP relentlessly attacks a tax that affects few rich people. The AMT was intended to prevent the rich from avoiding taxes by placing significant amounts of money in tax shelters, but the threshold amount has not been adjusted for inflation. The end result has been that people lower and lower on the economic scale are being penalized by the AMT. Now, mostly only the middle-class is paying the tax opposed to the intended targets, the rich.

The GOP has also gone out of its way to force the middle-class to pay more in other respects as well. The GOP has systematically reduced federal funding to institutions of higher education and at the same time destroyed the subsidized loans that students used to be eligible for. This has resulted in the middle-class having to pay more in initial costs for education and they are paying higher amounts of interest because the government is not assisting them through the subsidies it used to provide.

If this is not enough, a recent study regarding the tax code suggested that mortgage interest be removed as a tax deduction. Considering this is the largest tax deduction must middle-class Americans receive, reducing or removing it as a tax deduction would have a disproportionate impact on the middle-class.

Everything the GOP does is designed to hurt the middle-class. The GOP is not at all interested in bringing the middle-class up to the upper thresholds of the wealthy. They are trying to push them back into the throws of the poor. Until the GOP stops hurting the middle-class, it cannot and will not be known as a friend of the middle-class. It is time for the middle-class voters to stop voting for the GOP so long as they are being hurt by this party.

Prudhoe Bay

2006-08-12T08:26:00.000-05:00

BP has closed down its operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Up to 400,000 barrels of oil are pumped out of the oil field every day, and after learning that there are corroded components, BP determined that opposed to risking a major oil spill it would shut down its operations. Some oil has spilled in the area; however, BP claims that if it did not shut down the operations, a larger oil spill could have occurred. Now, BP is conducting maintenance on its equipment and trying to prevent any spillage from occurring, so it can restart its drilling operations.

The State of Alaska heavily taxes the oil that comes out of the ground. Nearly 80% of the State’s revenue is generated by oil tax. Losing a tax on 400,000 barrels of oil per day for who knows how long results in Alaska losing a lot of money - billions of dollars. Due to this loss of revenue, the Governor of Alaska is having his Attorney General investigate whether there is any liability which BP may have to the State for this lost revenue.

So BP is put in a bad spot. It could shut down the oil fields and prevent a larger oil spill than that which has already occurred and face liability to the State for its lost revenue. Alternatively, it could have continued operations, tried to make the repairs while active drilling continued and risked an oil spill for which it would have had to pay an environmental penalty and the cost of clean-up. Either way it was losing money. So at this point BP was in a no win situation. Should it protect its coffers or the environment. Oil companies are not known for being too concerned with the environmental impact of their operations. Thus, it would be more likely that facing this dilemma, the environment would be expendable in its opinion. Considering the alternatives, maybe BP should be commended for have protected the environment from more significant damage.

Then again, maybe BP has been delinquent up to this point and should be penalized through fines by the State and Federal Governments. BP did not engage in the preventative maintenance to ensure that the equipment was not corroded and dilapidated in the first place until it was already in a failing state. By failing to ensure that the pipes were in proper condition, BP placed itself in a position whereby it faced the option of causing a major oil spill or being sued by the State for lost tax revenue. This decision to not perform preventative maintenance placed the environment and the company at risk, yet BP did nothing until it was too late.

Corporations failing to ensure that its equipment is was not in proper condition seems to be habitual. The northeast blackout was caused because an electrical company chose to not maintain electrical lines. There was no profit in maintaining the electrical lines so it was a low priority. This low priority cost the nation billions of dollars in lost revenue when the lights went out for several days in the entire northeast.

BP has committed the same crime. It chose to not maintain essential equipment and risk the consequences regardless of what they may be. Deregulation allowed for the Ohio electrical company to not properly maintain the electrical lines, and lack of government oversight of the oil fields allowed BP to not maintain its equipment properly. In both cases, the public has been harmed as a result of a lack of government oversight.

Brand Names

2006-08-09T21:51:00.000-05:00

First impressions are the most important thing a person can make. Once that first impression is made, typically the other person holds on to the impression, and it is difficult to change. Businesses seek to create impressions too. Obtaining a reputation or "brand" is important for a business. The brand can be established through a company’s actions or clever marketing. When one thinks of G.M. they likely think about possible bankruptcy and pension default; Ford - the Pinto; Exxon - obscene profits and the Valdez. There are people who still refuse to purchase gas at an Exxon station due to the Valdez accident which occurred seventeen years ago (March 24, 1989). In other words, the actions of a company can break a company.

Clever advertising can create a brand, too. Ben and Jerry’s, even though it is now owned by a huge corporation (Unilever), still has the reputation of being a small town company which is concerned with the environment, donates to charity, and is involved in progressive social programs. All of these things may have been true before the company was acquired by Unilever, but it is unlikely that much if any of it is true today considering it has to be more concerned with stockholders’ returns opposed to social welfare.

Clever advertising can also change a brand. BP is an oil company that engages in all of the bad things that oil companies do. In fact, they are currently embroiled in a dispute regard oil leaks in Prudhoe Bay, a pristine environmental sanctuary. Nonetheless, BP has changed its brand from a nasty oil company to a "green" company because it reduced its own emissions by about 20% and claims to be focused on alternative energies. To create this image, BP spent untold sums of money, a lot of time and a lot of energy.

When the average American is asked about labor unions the likely impression is corruption. They know the stories of Jimmy Hoffa and others who where involved with the mob or were skimming money from the till. While the FBI spent a decade or more infiltrating organized labor and the mob, the reputation of the corrupt unions which are out more for their own gain opposed to the interests of the workers they represent remains. This reputation or brand is detrimental to the union movement. If the unions want to increase membership, infiltrate Wal-Mart and other large employers, then they need to rebrand.

Unions as a whole need to create an image which is advantageous to the workers and not adversarial. Low wage workers, who think the fat cats at the top of the union organizational chart are making millions off their union dues, which they see as a hardship to pay in the first place, will not voluntarily give up part of their small salary if they believe that they will not benefit from the membership. If the goal of the AFL-CIO or SEIU is to unionize Wal-Mart, then they need to be in a position to convince the employees that they will benefit more from the membership than the union will benefit. This is a difficult sale to make based upon the animosity toward unions that has established itself and the reputation unions created for themselves. Until this is done, however, the unions will merely spin their wheels and continue to fail in expanding their membership.

Failure to get more members could also result in the final destruction of unions. One of the main reasons people join unions today is for the pension system. If there are more retirees than workers, then the pensions will go bust. Loss of the pensions will result in a loss of membership. The continued loss of members be it for reduction in pension benefits or due to general attrition, will ultimately result in unions folding up shop and organized labor will become a thing of the past.

With union membership at about 13% of the US workforce, the Unions need to find ways to attract new members and become a force within the nation again. While their reputation remains as corrupt organizations, their membership will remain low and continue to decrease. Absent rebranding, the unions will not accomplish their goal and all workers, union and non-union will suffer as a result.

7-7 Compensation

2006-07-16T10:42:00.000-05:00

On July 7, 2005, terrorist bombs ripped through the London transportation system killing 52 people. During the recent anniversary of the attack, there were discussions, aired in the United States, as to whether the victim’s families should receive monetary compensation from the government as a result of their loss. The debate stems from the Victims’ Compensation Fund that was established in the United States after the 9-11 attacks which killed over 3000 in the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. After the fund was created there were a number of voices from the Oklahoma City bombings that were saying that if the 9-11 victims were being compensated, then they too should receive compensation for their loss in 1996, five years earlier.

The clamoring for compensation for the London and Oklahoma City attacks misunderstands the reason for the Victims’ Compensation Fund and why the United States Government paid money to many of those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The basis for the Victims’ Compensation Fund does not exist for the other two attacks, and the respective governments should not provide the families compensation.

September 11 was largely a result of airlines being negligent in the safety features placed in their airplanes. The airlines had a major hand in the security screening that passengers underwent prior to boarding the airplanes and were solely responsible for the specifications of the airplanes themselves. As a result of United’s and American’s negligent actions, the planes were susceptible to being taken over by hijackers.

For instance, the security screeners were forced to be sure people moved quickly through the security line, so the airplanes were not delayed as a result of security procedures. This allowed for people to go through a security line with a number of dangerous items, including straight razors. At the time, it is unlikely that even if security guards were more diligent in the screening process, they would not have confiscated box cutters since no one would have seen them as a threat to the safety of the passengers or airplane. What was a greater looming threat that the airlines knew about and were responsible for not correcting was the lack of security for the cockpit. Flimsy doors with inadequate locks separated the cockpit from the passenger compartment. Pilots had complained a number of times long before September 11 that dunks were known to have breached the door and gotten access to the cockpit placing the airplane in danger since the pilots were required to address a drunk in the cockpit opposed to flying the airplane. Despite the complaints, the airlines chose to be cheap and not put in reinforced doors and secure locks to protect the pilots from drunks to terrorists. This negligent act of failing to secure the cockpit resulted in the terrorists being able to get into the cockpit and taking charge of the airplane.

After the attacks, it was apparent that the airlines were negligent in their actions and faced lawsuits from all of the people who were onboard the four airplanes and those who were killed in the four crashes. This exposed two major airlines to endless lawsuits which likely would result in forcing both of them to go under.

Due to deregulation, the legacy airlines have been disappearing. Many of those that used to exist have been subsumed into other companies resulting in only a handful of companies continuing to operate. A loss of two of those legacy carriers would reduce the competition in the airline sector allowing for the remaining airlines to have a monopoly on the market and anti-competitive advantages over any new airline which may try to fill the void left by the collapse of United and American.

The United States Congress understood the economic calamity that would result in these two airlines folding, so it created a corporate welfare program in the form of a bailout. The United States Government established a policy whereby it would make payments to the victims families based upon an archaic formula devised by a bureaucratic committee, and in exchange for receiving the payment, the victims’ families waived their right to sue the airlines. The waiver provision was the most important part for the Government because it helped protect the legacy carriers.

The possibility of major economic ruin for a large sector of the economy or even the overall United States economy was not present in the Oklahoma City attack and similarly not in the London attacks. No one was suing Ryder truck claiming that it was negligent in renting the truck to Timothy McVeigh. Even if they did, Ryder going out of business as a result would not have major implications on the rental truck industry or the overall US economy. Nor is it likely that the London transit system is going to be put out of business if it gets sued by the 52 victims families.

In the end, the underlying need for a government funded compensation program is not present in the other two incidences to justify a compensation fund being created. Further, what consideration would there be in victims taking the money? Would they waive their right to sue the transit system in London or the Ryder Truck Company in Oklahoma City? Such a waiver is not really necessary in either case, and there is no other incentive to provide such compensation. Moreover, governments do not want to establish a policy whereby they become the de facto insurance policy for terrorist attacks, when in reality, the private sector needs to take steps to protect the people they serve and the private companies need to take out their own insurance policies for such attacks on their businesses.

More of the Same

2006-07-07T21:27:00.000-05:00

In May, United States Attorney Chris Christie gave a speech during which he stated that the most controversial aspect of the Patriot Act has never been utilized and citizens should not be fearful of whether their library records are vulnerable to government inspection. The USA Patriot Act allows for the FBI to demand that a public library disclose what patrons have checked out and the library cannot disclose to anyone, including the patron, that the demand has been made. However, what US Attorney Christie did not explain was how it is that if this provision has never been utilized, why is it the FBI has dropped its demand that a Connecticut library produce records regarding computer use by its patrons.

The instant case exposes the flaws in the provision of the USA Patriot Act, which need to be remedied. The FBI demanded that files from a computer be produced as a part of its investigation into alleged terrorist acts. However, after more than a year with the library system refusing to produce the documents, it turns out that the terrorist threat that was being investigated was not a terrorist threat at all. Rather, through other means, the FBI determined that the threat was "not viable."

This determination shows that the FBI does not need to demand these private records from libraries without a warrant if it just uses its other investigative tools and sources to assess the alleged threats. The Patriot Act’s provision which allows for the library records’ warrantless inspect is nothing more than a lazy shortcut that the FBI is trying to use in violation of the privacy rights of the citizens. Considering the majority of the so called leads that the FBI engages in regarding terrorism are false, the FBI’s attempt to use lazy shortcuts for investigation techniques exposes too many people to having their library records inspected needlessly.

The fact that a U.S. Attorney knowingly tells people that we should not be fearful of having our library records inspected pursuant to the library provision of the Patriot Act because this provision has never been utilized is disconcerting. This administration has a habit of lying to the public to serve its political gains, and it loses more credibility each time it is caught in the lies. However, as is typically in any administration, the lower you go on the organizational chart the less likely it is that they will be engaged in the systematic talking points. Despite this, a lowly U.S. Attorney has been schooled in the distortion of the truth process that the White House has engaged in for five years. This not only undermines the credibility of the administration, but also the U.S. Attorney’s office, regardless of who is in office, and law enforcement agencies in general.

These deceptions and lies undermine the veracity of all who have come before and will come afterward, and when tools which may be similar to the library search provision are really necessary and real threats are investigated, no one will allow the inspections because too many times will we have been lied to and deceived by all levels of administrations.

Personal Savings Rate

2006-07-01T10:22:00.000-05:00

The United States’ personal savings rate is -1.7%. The numbers are a bit skewed because people at the bottom of the income scale are continuing to save the way they always have; however, the people at the top of the income scale are disproportionately affecting the statistic by spending significantly more than they earn. Even so, there is consensus that we are saving less today than ten or fifteen years ago. But there are some things that likely account for this lack of savings which is not being discussed or acknowledged.

First our entire retirement system has changed. Fifteen years ago, employees were not required to put much money aside to cover their retirement because they were enrolled in defined benefits programs. Now, employees who are not making much more money in inflation adjusted dollars are required to take money out of their budget and put it toward a 401(k). The average savings in 401(k) is about 8%, and if you take the first 8% of a person’s income and put it in unliquidated accounts while other bills like rent and food continue going up in cost, there is less money available to the person to save. It should also be noted that 401(k) savings is not accounted for in the personal savings rate, so this savings is not included in the -1.7%.

The government has created a generation of debt in Generation X and those coming up through the ranks afterward. It used to be that college students were able to rely upon grants and other subsidized money to pay for college tuition. Today, college, the road to the middle-class, has increased substantially in cost, which is in part due to the government’s refusal to provide money to institutions of higher education, and the government has taken away the last bastion of assistance to middle-class students – subsidized student loans. As costs have gone up and the obligation to pay for school has shifted from subsidized funds to personal loans and the personal loans have become more burdensome on the students, when a student graduates, they are saddled with more debt than other generation before it. The average student is graduating with more than $20,000 in debt, although this statistic is likely very low compared to the real debt level students have upon graduation. Being saddled with debt and likely low incomes immediately after college these students have no way to save money for their rainy day fund.

The Baby Boomers are getting squeezed too. Their parents are getting older and there are no safety nets for the aging. Medicare and Medicaid are not sufficient to provide medical coverage for those who need long-term care, so their children are looked to for the funds to cover the costs. At the same time, the Baby Boomers have children in college who are looking for assistance to cover the ever increasing tuition costs. So any disposable income they have is likely going to others to assist them in covering their essential needs. As these resources decrease, the ability to save money goes down.

If having people save money is important to the nation, then the nation needs to reevaluate how people should come up with the cash for the greatest drains on people’s finances. The retirement burden needs to be shifted away from the employee, college tuition needs to be reduced and government assistance needs to be reinstated, and elder care needs to be established. As the GOP starves the beast, they are destroying the minimal safety net that used to exist and the end result is that the economy is precariously teetering because while the people could afford the taxes that established the safety nets and could afford increased taxes to strengthen these safety nets they cannot afford the significantly greater expense of building from scratch the personal safety nets especially while wages stagnate. Without any savings to fall back upon because all their money is going into the building of the safety nets, when (not if) the economy collapses, due to irresponsible economic policies, all of the middle-class will get lost into poverty and there will be no one to assist in the rebuilding of the national economy. In other words, it is in the nations economic interest to rebuild the safety nets and remove these burdens from the middle-class.

Knock-And-Announce

2006-06-18T07:56:00.000-05:00

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled this week that while police must comply with the "knock-and-announce" rule when executing a search warrant, if they fail to, then the evidence can still be used in a court of law. These seem to be contradictory positions, but the issue rests with whether the execution of the warrant, not the issuance of it, was improper. Thus, the question becomes one of procedure over substance and which should predominate.

In 1995, a unanimous Court determined that the common-law rule of police knocking on a person’s door prior to entering a house and executing a search warrant was required in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure provisions. In other cases, it had been determined that if a search is conducted without probable cause, then the evidence illegally procured had to be suppressed and could not be used in a criminal trial.

Technically, nothing has changed the Fourth Amendment requirements that a police officer must knock prior to executing a search warrant; however, practically, there is no immediate ramification for failure to adhere to this requirement since the evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the warrant can still be used in court. The majority said it can be and several organizations have denounced this decision as a loss of civil liberties. However, it must be determined just what has been lost and whether it was actually a civil liberty prior to the decision.

SCOTUS’s decision does not remove the requirement that the police obtain a warrant prior to entering a house and conducting a search. Thus, prior to the police approaching the house, the police had to show probable cause to a neutral judge in order to obtain the warrant. Once probable cause has been established, the Fourth Amendment’s substantive requirements have been met and only procedural execution of the warrant needs to be conducted. Whether they knock is merely a minor procedural matter that does not diminish the validity of the warrant or the fruits of the search.

This matter can be viewed in a different way as well. When a police officer knocks on a door to execute a warrant a person will presumably answer the door. At that time, the officer will state that he is there pursuant to a warrant to search the house. That person can either voluntarily allow the officer in or deny them entry. If entry is denied, then the officer will force entry and conduct the search anyway. Since the court has already determined that probable cause has been met any search conducted within the parameters of the warrant is valid regardless of whether the home owner acquiesces to the police’s entry.

The SCOTUS dissent stated that the cost of replacing the door and the prevention of a person being surprised by the enforcement of a warrant justify the knock-and-announce rule. Such arguments do not instruct the constitutionality of police actions. Rather the reasonableness of their actions is instructive as to whether they acted within the mandates of the Constitution.

In the end, so long as there is probable cause to conduct a search, the procedure of the execution should not denigrate the evidence procured.

Funding the Enemy

2006-06-02T21:06:00.000-05:00

Organizations are beginning to use their power as shareholders in corporations as swords to force companies to engage in more appropriate actions as determined by the organizations. Specifically, there are non-profit organizations which request that shareholders assign their proxy vote to them so the non-profit can vote for corporate resolutions that are in the interest of the non-profit organization. For example, environmental groups obtain proxies of oil companies to vote on environmental measures while humanitarian organizations introduce and vote for international humanitarian requirements on similar companies.

There are others who use their money to invest in only "green" companies. These funds allow investors to director their money to socially responsible companies opposed to continuing to fund companies that do nothing but worry about the bottom line regardless of the long term consequences of their actions. Such green funds have not become a major aspect of the mutual fund families available to investors; however, they are gaining strength and are utilized by some investors regardless of whether the returns are as strong as other funds.

As organizations seek to use their money and financial power to influence corporate actions, it is a wonder why unions are funding the enemy. Wal-Mart is currently having its annual shareholders meeting. A resolution has been introduced to require Wal-Mart to publish the amount of money that it contributes to state and federal political campaigns. The irony is that the resolution was introduced by the Teamsters. Apparently, the Teamsters pension fund has invested in Wal-Mart and holds enough shares that it can introduce resolutions and garner support for such resolutions.

For a number of years the AFL-CIO, an organization the Teamsters used to belong to, has been trying to unionize Wal-Mart. Despite all of those years and all of the energy put into the process, it was not successful in unionizing even a single store. In fact, Wal-Mart violated federal law on a number of occasions when it closed stores in which it thought that it would lose a union vote. These efforts have been expensive for the unions involved in the unionization effort and have taken a significant amount of time and effort.

The question then becomes, if the unions are working so hard to unionize Wal-Mart, why is their pension funds investing in Wal-Mart? It may be profitable for the pension fund to invest in the stock, but isn’t it in the long term interest of the Teamsters to only invest in companies which are unionized or at least not adverse to unions? The Teamsters pension fund likely has a lot of money to invest into various companies. If it invested only in companies which were supportive of the Teamsters, then those companies would become stronger based upon having unions and being able to utilize union money. This in turn would allow these companies to become stronger and in turn, the Teamsters would become stronger.

Continuing to invest in companies that are adverse to their positions and existence only undermines the unions. If they continue to invest in companies that are not in their interest and the unions become weaker as a result because such companies become stronger, then the unions deserve to fail and become obsolete. Such failure will be because of their own actions, and we must reap what we sow.

Profit Sharing

2006-05-22T18:51:00.000-05:00

We have been told that oil prices have peaked and are slowing coming down. Part of the reason for the reduction of gas prices is that demand has dropped and more supply has come on-line. The supply is a result of some refineries which were "closed down for repairs" being revived and are now producing usable fuel.

At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission has released a report which looked at the narrow issue of why gas prices spiked in September 2005. The final conclusion was that the FTC did not know. One of the problems with the study was that if an oil company chose to not put its full force behind getting refineries on-line, there was no way for a government study to show that there were intentional delays that resulted in artificially inflated gas prices.

Several summers ago California suffered from high energy prices and rolling blackouts. A great deal of this was a result of Enron contacting powerplants and telling them that they should shut down for repairs as their energy was not needed on the grid. The powerplants complied, which reducing the amount of energy on the grid. This resulted in higher prices of the remaining supply and the need for rolling blackouts to try and balance the demand and the artificially diminished supply. Northern California all but came to a complete stop.

As is being shown by the United States in the Skilling and Lay trial that has recently been submitted to the jury, Enron obtained exorbitant profits from manipulating the market and abusing the power which it had wielded. There is no reason to believe that the few oil companies that are left have not engaged in the same type of market manipulation. There are only a few major oil companies in this country, and they are the most profitable companies in the nation - possibly the world. These companies know that the nation is beholden to their product and that the nation will pay any price that is placed on the product. If the companies reduce the amount of usable gas by scaling down the refinery capacity and the number of refineries which are operational, then they can force the prices up and increase the amount of profit that is procured.

We have seen a company manipulate the fifth largest economy in the world in order to obtain unjust profits. There is no reason to believe that the oil companies are any more noble than Enron in that they would not collude to manipulate the market and ensure that they too can obtain huge sums of profits at the detriment of the public’s pocketbook and nation’s overall economy.

The only entity that is big enough to take on these companies and force them to abide by legitimate means of obtaining profits and staying in business is the United States government; however, since we currently have "leaders" who have worked in the oil industry, it is unlikely that anyone in this Administration will go after the companies or even question their actions. Thus, there is a big pay day for all of the oil companies until at least 2008 , and they know it.

The Lost Generation

2006-05-20T14:11:00.000-05:00

A recent survey of college students asked what places they wanted to work had the number one result as Disney. Number two was Google. Also in the top five was the State Department, the FBI and the CIA. The study indicates that college students want to devote their time to public service. However, there is still a question as to what parts of public service will be filled by Generation X and subsequent generations.

New Jersey’s U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie, gave a speech during which he recited a story from when he spoke to an elementary class. At that time he asked how many of them wanted to be President of the United States when they grew up. According to the U.S. Attorney, none of the students raised their hands. The U.S. Attorney attributed this lack of desire to be in politics and public service to the perception of corruption in politics. While his address focused on the corruption in New Jersey, the national news has been focusing on Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Delay, Porter Goss’s attendance at poker and hooker parties, etc. Their actions and all of this Administration’s the misdeeds has taken a toll on those who may come afterward.

Kennedy inspired a generation of people to want to become part of government and make a difference in others lives. Reagan began killing this idea by espousing tax cuts and destruction of the social safety net that was built during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. These beliefs have crescendoed with this Administration and the belief that starving the beast and destruction of government is necessary. The past twenty plus years has made the government the villain which has reduced people’s desire to be part of government.

Another impediment people becoming governmental leaders is the financial aspect. As government starves the beast higher education has suffered. The grants that used to be given to students to pay for school have dried up because the federal funding has been reduced. Now students are ever more reliant on loans that need to be paid off upon graduation. Further, the Administration has made the loans more expensive by removing the government subsidy of interest payments while the student is in school. Thus, the students will have the interest compound on the loan for the four to five years they are in school and will be in greater debt upon graduation. Lastly, public institutions have lost funding from the federal government and have had to pass the additional costs onto the students thereby making it more expensive for the students to go to school, which means the interest that is getting compounded into the student loans is increasing faster because the principal is higher. In the end, the banks are going to make a lot more money than they used to and the students will be saddled with a significantly larger debt than they would have had just a generation ago. The end result is that the debt forces people to seek out the higher paying jobs, not the jobs they want to take which may be with the government or a non-profit organization.

The inspiration of a generation ago is gone. Piece by piece the past twenty years of leadership has dismantled what we were and what we wanted to be. The leadership has catered to businesses to ensure them profits and a beholden workforce by removing the government as a competitive or desirable employer. It is no surprise that the number two place college students want to work has the motto of "Do no evil" and pays a lot. Maybe its time for the government to adopt a similar motto and become part of the solution as it was trying to be under Kennedy’s watch.

Military Priorities

2006-05-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

Someone needs to set forth a definition of what the Air National Guard’s duties and responsibilities are. As it stands they are supposed to be combat support in Iraq, disaster relief during natural disasters and now they are supposed to be Border Patrol. Their mission in the 1960s during the Vietnam War was "domestic security." So when Dubya was avoiding military duty he flew airplanes to protect our airspace from the ever creeping presence of communism. But today, no one knows what it is the Air National Guard are supposed to be trained to do or ready to perform. The Air National Guard is not supposed to be some catch all for the President to order around whenever he feels like it. A comprehensive military policy is necessary setting forth what roles the military is supposed to play in this nation and around the world.

As genocide occurs in Darfur, this Administration has concluded that the most pressing military threat to the US are Latinos coming across the border. This military threat adds billions of dollars to our economy and ensures a lot of services such as picking fruits and vegetables, building houses, cleaning homes and offices and other work is performed regularly. Apparently, all of these Latinos streaming across the border are more important than assisting Liberia when it specifically requested US intervention in its civil war.

As people die needlessly around the world, the United States needs to be willing to use its military force and its leadership to build coalitions of nations to mobilize and act. Without a comprehensive strategy as to the role the United States’, when crises occur, there is no framework for any Administration to determine how it should handle the situation. The ad hoc method of making decisions has resulted in contradictory decisions - it is right to stop the genocide in the former Yugoslavia but not in Rwanda, Darfur, or Sierra Leone.

Without a plan there is no way to prepare or train the military personnel, including the Air National Guard. This results in people protesting the over extension of the military and its personnel. The same military personnel are going into Iraq over and over again while other battalions remain home the entire duration of the conflict. Troops are sent to New Orleans without the proper equipment or training and are then told to attend to the Mexican border - again without the necessary training.

The lack of coherent policies puts the personnel in harms way. Without the necessary training, equipment and the over extension results in the personnel being overly tired and not as sharp and aware of their surrounds as they must be. All of this results in mistakes that can result in death and harm to innocent civilians who believe, reliably, that the military personnel assisting them are prepared and knowledgeable about what to do. Unfortunately, they do not.

Although, without a comprehensive plan, politicians can use the military for political gain alone as Dubya has done with the Air National Guard in Monday’s speech and saying that thousands can be deployed to the border as support for the Border Patrol.

TV News

2006-05-16T16:47:00.000-05:00

Newsweek has an article this week about the season finale of the television show Lost, which is all fine and good considering it is in the "Entertainment" section of the magazine. But more and more television shows are becoming part of the news that is being provided by what is supposed to be reputable news sources. When Survivor was first on the air each of the people who were voted off were paraded out on the CBS morning show and interviewed and discussed their experiences as if such a thing was newsworthy. Of course the morning shows probably should not be considered real news sources, but they pretend to be quality news.

Today, legitimate news magazines such as Newsweek are promoting articles such as the season finale of Lost as a reason to purchase their product. They downplay real news stories, have reduced the space in the magazine for actual news stories, and have apparently decided to forgo actual investigative journalism in lieu of the easy story that requires no thought process for the writer, editor or reader.

Newsweek is not the only culprit. Television news broadcasts provide stories regarding American Idle and those voted off the stage and all of the warm praises Simon provides them as if this is an important event for those watching the broadcast seeking newsworthy events.

Timing, significance, proximity, prominence and human interest are the categories which are generally used to determine if a story is newsworthy. A story needs to fit into at least two of the categories to be considered. Articles about fictional stories on television or contestants on game shows do not meet this criteria except in the most extreme scenario. When Ken Jennings who won for six months straight and had over $2 million of winnings lost it was worth a news cycle, but the day in and day out stories in the news about what is on television degrades the news process and only proves that Americans are not concerned with the things that are going on around them; rather, Americans are disconnected and uninterested in the impact of their actions in the world; they only concern themselves with television shows.

Instead of talking about fictional stories, it is time that Americans start getting an education in its impact on the world and how the citizens of the nation are fairing under this Administration’s ineptness. Americans should be getting news stories about Darfur, Liberia, Afghanistan, the poor in LA, Topeka and New York. These are actual stories that fit in the criteria for news and should be in place of stories about fictional events. So long as the media outlets continue to report on non-newsworthy events Americans will remain apatetic to their role in world. It is time for the media to be responsible for presenting actual newsworthy events so Americans can become more engaged in their surroundings.

No Economic Benefits

2006-05-13T19:58:00.000-05:00

Justification for tax cuts continues to be that they will spur the economy. We have been hearing this argument for nearly six years now, but in the wake of the strongest economy in generations (the ‘90s) the succession of tax cuts since 2001 have apparently done little or nothing for the economy. A recent NY Times/CBS News shows that 28% of those polled approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. This is also reflected in the consumer confidence numbers, which are at the lowest point since last October and took the biggest one-time drop in 28 years.

Maybe it is true that cutting taxes can spur the economy. In fact, it makes sense that if less of a person’s paycheck is devoted to taxes they will spend more; however, there are a few flaws in the theory. First, this is a nation in debt and people realize that they cannot continue spending without consequences. As such, any extra money that is provided to the average person will go to debt reduction and not to the purchase of new products. This was seen with the $300 per taxpayer rebate that was distributed in 2001. When those checks were issued 46.2% of the people used it to pay off debt. The same would likely occur if the average American received a tax decrease: they would primarily use the money to pay off ever growing credit cards.

The second flaw in the theory is that the tax cuts that have been enacted have been skewed toward the top income brackets. The people at the top of the income scale do not need reduced taxes to have money accessible to spend in the economy. Rather they have disposable income and much of that money sits idly in the markets earning more money and not moving through the economy, which is necessary for economic benefits.

Moreover, when the first set of tax cuts were enacted and the discussion of making dividends tax free was occurring, businesses were not in need of money; therefore, encouraging investment in businesses was not necessary. Interest rates were extremely low and obtaining loans from banks, if extra money was necessary for infrastructure or capital improvements, were easily accessable. The fact that they did not access it and did not engage in capital improvements shows that they were not looking for additional money from stock investments or otherwise. Thus, the reductions in tax rates either were not designed or did not encourage actual investment in businesses.

The end result is that the Administration did not seek to spur the economy nor did it seek to encourage investment in businesses with the tax cuts from 2001 through today. Rather, the tax cuts have been nothing more than a give away to the rich. Nothing of significance has gone to the middle or lower classes and the upper class has not used the money for economic prosperity, just personal income gains.

The argument that the tax cuts were designed to spur the economy has been a myth and continues to be a myth. Further, no future tax cuts should be passed based upon this claim.

Laffer Curve

2006-05-12T22:02:00.000-05:00

Congress has once again reduced the taxes for the wealthiest people of the nation. Before Dubya was in office, long term capital gains were taxed at 20%. As part of the first tax cuts implemented by this administration the rates were reduced to 15%. These tax cuts were scheduled to expire, which was merely a gimmick to keep the total tax cost at a specific number. This week, however, Congress extended the tax rate until 2010.

The GOP claims that reducing taxes increases tax revenue for the government. The principal has been called the Laffer Curve, which states that there is a point whereby tax rates will create a peak revenue and increasing or decreasing the tax rate from there will decrease the amount of tax revenue. The trick is determining where the peak is and determining whether the government needs to maintain peak revenue.

It is unclear how reducing the taxes for the rich will increase the tax revenues. The people who are buying and selling stocks the most are the people who can afford major investments - thus people that have significant amounts of disposable income. Many of these people obtain a majority of their income through the sale of stocks. For instance, at the outer most reaches of the economic spectrum, Bill Gates makes less than $1 million per year in actual compensation from Microsoft; however, he is worth over $25 billion. What Gates declares on his income tax form is likely significantly more than $1 million per year; thus, every dollar over that initial $1 million is money gained from capital gains, not wages.

While Gates, who is the richest man in the world, is the extreme case, it is true that the majority of the people at the top of the economic scale are in a similar situation whereby they obtain most of their income from stocks in their companies rather than actual wages paid to them. Thus, the majority of their income is taxed at 15% whereby the majority of the average American’s income is taxed at approximately 30%, plus they are taxed 6% for social security and taxed for medicare and state taxes. Social security, medicare and state taxes are not assessed on capital gains.

In other words, the people at the top of the economic scale are getting the majority of their income at a discounted rate compared to what the average Americans have to pay. Further, the people at the top of the income have more disposable income than the average person does, which is shown by their having money tied up in the market opposed to paying their bills month to month. Since the wealthiest of Americans have greater amounts of disposable income, it is not unreasonable to expect them to pay greater amounts of money than those in the middle and bottom of the economic spectrum.

There is no indication that the US is at the peak of the Laffer Curve or to the right of it, assuming that the theory is accurate. Further, reducing taxes disproportionately for the rich is not the kind of tax rate reduction that would be necessary to move the rate toward the peak of the curve. Rather, if the goal is to attempt to achieve the peak, then greater tax rate changes need to be made on the payroll tax, the primary tax paid by all Americans. Further, whether this amount needs to go up or down needs to be determined based upon where the US is on the curve. The GOP just assumes that the US is toward the right side of the curve, and such an assumption is likely flawed.

It is time the US stops blindly reducing taxes and starts acting responsibly with its revenue especially in this time of extreme debt: $8 trillion and counting.

On Going Healthcare Debate

2006-05-11T14:41:00.000-05:00

The Atlantic has an article, The Poison Pill, regarding issues concerning healthcare, which is in line with some posts I made a few months ago: Universal Healthcare is Good For Business, Only The Health Stay Insured, and Employment Based Healthcare Has To End. The writers of The Atlantic are second to none, and it is nice to find their essays addressing similar issues to those which have been raised here. If you have not seen The Atlantic's take on this issue, I highly recommend it.

Blame the Lawyers

2006-05-06T17:29:00.000-05:00

The prosecution in the Enron case is about to call several rebuttal witnesses for its case against Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. A significant amount of the evidence against them shows that they were knowledgeable of the fraud that was being perpetrated against the stockholders and the public by Andy Fastow creating offshore accounts which assumed Enron’s debt. However, Lay and Skilling are not the only ones who should be held responsible for these actions; the lawyers need to be held accountable too.

Lawyers created offshore corporations and gave them names like Death Star and Chewbaca. The lawyers certainly knew what the purpose of the corporations was – to assume the debt of Enron in order for Enron to show profits on the books and keep its stock price high. There was no other purpose. There were no board of directors, business plans or products created by any of these corporations. The lawyers had to know this in order to create these shells.

In New York and New Jersey, it is unethical for attorneys to engage in activity that perpetuates a fraud. Engaging in unethical behavior can result in an attorney being suspended from the practice of law for specific periods of time or in extreme cases disbarred and precluded from ever practicing law again. A suspension is a significant punishment for an attorney. A lot of money can be lost in three or six months or clients could decide to move to different firms as a result of having a lawyer deemed to be unethical.

The actions of the attorneys who created the corporations that assumed the Enron debt knew they were creating corporations to perpetrate a fraud. Yet they have gotten off scot free regardless of their violation of ethical. No news articles or stories have indicated that any lawyers have been held accountable for their complicit acts in the fraud that we call Enron. No information has been forthcoming that the lawyers have been held accountable as Arthur Anderson, the accountants, were. Yet, they are as culpable for the fraud as the accountants. Why should a major accounting firm disappear and the lawyers all get to continue billing hundreds of dollars an hour.

The lawyers who created the offshore corporations need to have ethical violations brought against them immediately. They should not receive a free pass for their intentional blindness to the purpose of their actions. Until the lawyers are suspended or disbarred, the Enron case will not be closed. Rather, only some of the guilty parties will have been held accountable.

. . . Then Act Like A Super-Power

2006-04-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

The United States has the largest most advanced military in the world. “With great power comes great responsibility.” Yet, the United States has refused to use its power in a responsible manner.

In 1997 Liberia’s Second Civil War began, and it continued through 2003. In June 2003, after there was evidence that President Charles Taylor had engaged in crimes against humanity including terrorizing Sierra Leon’s civilian population, sexual violence and recruiting child soldiers, the United States refused to intervene and send military troops even though the United Nations and Western African nations called for US intervention.

Despite knowledge of war crime occurring in Western Africa, the United States refused to intervene and attempt to stabilize the region. Instead, again, the US decided that it would allow Africa to continue to suffer at the hands of warlords and tyrants. Thus, when the Unites States was called upon to use its military power for purposes of good, it turned its back and decided to continue to focus solely on its unnecessary war in Iraq.

This was not the first time the US turned its back on Africa. No soldiers were sent into Rwanda when there was genocide occurring. While the US organized NATO and led a coalition to stop the genocide and other war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, this one “humanitarian” act is insufficient for the US to say that it is living up to its great responsibility.

Having the world’s largest most advanced military requires that the United States step up when military action is called for. It must be used when innocent people are being killed or terrorized regardless of where it occurs. The military cannot be used solely to fight unnecessary wars that fulfill the Administration’s personal agendas while claiming that it is over extended and cannot engage in protecting the African people.

It is the United States’ responsibility to be a leader in the international arena. It can only do that when it is willing to become part of the international community and lead by example. Standing up for the unprotected and defenseless is the first example that must be made.

It's Not A War

2006-04-23T10:29:00.000-05:00

Once again, we are hearing that we should not question the Administration during “times of war.” First, for any administration to claim that the people need to censor themselves because the administration does not want to be bothered with dissent is in and of itself anti-democratic. Further, it is unlikely that any insurgents in Iraq is watching the news and saying because there are voices of dissent, the insurgents must be winning the hearts and minds of the Americans. Of course, under the theory that there should not be any questioning of the administration would also lead one to believe that there should not be any elections until the “war” is over, whenever that will occur. Of course we have not cancelled elections and the opposition party is not restricted to only saying they are going to continue the “war” the way this administration is doing it – just because the opposition party is saying this does not mean that it is legally restricted to saying it.

Nonetheless, even if it were true that we should not question the Administration during “times of war” the rhetoric does not work any more because we are not at war.

In 2000, when Governor Bush was running for office, he said that he would not allow the United States to engage in nation building. Nonetheless, he broke that promise many years ago. On May 2, 2003, Bush went to the USS Lincoln and announced that the mission was accomplished. At that moment, he officially declared that the war in Iraq was over. Starting on May 3, 2003 through the present the United States has been solely engaged in nation building. There is no ongoing war, and the Administration cannot claim that we are at war. Thus, the people should feel free to voice dissent whenever and however they wish.

Just because there are skirmishes and people are being killed does not mean we are at war. In any of this nation’s biggest cities, there are people who are being shot at and killed on a regular basis; however, noone would claim that there is a war going on in those cities. In Mogadishu, the United States Army was engaged in battles with “insurgents,” but noone declared that to be a war. Rather, that was nation building that was started by President Bush, 41, and continued by President Clinton. Thus, shootings and killings do not necessarily qualify an action as a war.

To be a war, a nation must still be engaged in military conflict with another nation. Although, the Administration has tried to change this definition to suit its own needs it has been unsuccessful to do so. On May 2, 2003, Bush announced that the Iraqi government had been overthrown and that it was no longer under the control of Saddam Hussein. When that occurred, the war against Iraq ended. At that point the United States determined that it needed to rebuild the destruction and help establish a new government and economy so it would be a stable nation. In come Haliburton, Bechtel and other US corporations to make a profit off the backs of Americans and Iraqis alike.

So long as we are engaged in nation building and profit making, the Administration needs to stop threatening people who engage in dissent. George Bush criticized the Clinton Administration for his nation building efforts, and Bush should be open to the same form of criticism. The media and politicians should also start calling the Administration’s actions what they are: Nation Building.

Tax Man (Part II) - Coporate Tax Avoidance

2006-04-14T13:00:00.000-05:00

Groups that are paying the least amount in taxes or avoiding taxes all together are the ones that are receiving the greatest subsidies from the government. Those who are at the top of the income brackets and the major corporations, which pay the least percentage of their income in taxes, are the ones that get the greatest benefit from governmental services and they have the most to lose when the governmental programs fail.

Just as an example of the tax avoidance problem, Enron paid no tax four of the last five years it was in existence and it received a million dollar refund from government on at least one occasion. Thus, not only did it not pay taxes, it actually made money on the backs of others who were paying taxes. Nonetheless, it, like other major business, benefitted from the government programs it failed to pay for or support.

Every business that has an internet portal has gained a subsidy from the government as it is was the U.S. military that developed the internet and no business was required to pay to access it or to reimburse the government for its development. The interstate system is used the most by companies that are shipping products from one place to another and helping to ensure that their employees can get to work in a timely fashion every day. Companies shipping products through the air either through overnight courier services or otherwise are reliant on the government continuing to ensure that air travel is safe and efficient. The pharmaceutical companies receive a great deal of protection by the FDA conducting the testing process and many drugs that are found to be defective after being released rightfully receive immunity from tort claims based upon their the FDA testing process. Businesses are the ones who receive the greatest benefit from tax dollars as they are using the governmental services in greater quantities than individuals are.

When the government systems fail, the businesses are the ones that have the greatest to lose. When the Northeast blackout occurred in 2003 the nation lost between $7 and $10 billion dollars in the course of two days. The reason for the blackout was that the government deregulated the electrical industry and the private companies determined that there was no cost benefit in maintaining the Ohio powerlines, which, when they failed, affected the entire Northeast. Thus, government’s failure to maintain the systems resulted in significant losses for businesses.

When the New York subway and bus workers went on strike, New York City businesses lost approximately $400 million per day. The companies were not closed down the way they were when the blackout occurred; however, due to the reduced number of employees who could get to work and other complications that the strike caused resulted in significant losses.

Commercial cruise lines, such as Carnival, avoid taxes and U.S. law by having their ships fly under a Liberian flag opposed to a United States flag. By flagging the ships in Liberia, the ships are governed by Liberian tax laws, which are virtually non-existent; however, the ships likely never dock in Liberia during the course of their service and the companies rely upon port security and the U.S. Coast Guard when emergencies occur. All these are in operation because our taxes pay for them, even if the cruise lines which rely on them do not.

In sum, when the government programs fail, it is the businesses that have the most to lose, yet businesses are paying the lowest percentage of their overall income to taxes compared to individual tax payers. So long as businesses are more reliant on the governmental services than individuals, the businesses should be required to pay their fair share of income tax and not receive huge tax breaks by the Federal and State governments.

Tax Man (Part I): Personal Income Tax

2006-04-14T12:45:00.000-05:00

April 17 is tax day since April 15 falls on a Saturday this year. It is a day that is dreaded by many, but we need to reevaluate how we assess the paying of our taxes, which is that we need to evaluate the cost opposed to the benefits.

The United States pays less in taxes than most other nations. Payroll taxes are less than thirty percent, and this is significantly less than what other first world nations are paying. But the real determination as to whether the amount being paid is justified is what you are receiving for the money paid.

Government services ensure that we drink clean water, have clean air, a stable electrical grid system, and useable roads are used by nearly every American. There are government inspectors that inspect the meat we eat, the buildings we spend time in to ensure they are properly built, when there are chemical spills or unknown contaminates in an area, the government has services such as the CDC or a local HazMat team that arrives to assess the threats to the people who have been exposed to it.

The government provides security on our roads, ports, skies, waters. The FAA regulates the flight of airplanes and has rules and regulations in place to ensure that airplanes are safe for travel and that they operate in an orderly manner so there are not collisions either on the ground or in the air. The reason that flying is the safest mode of travel is that the government has had a hand in the process since almost the first day to ensure that it was that way and that it would remain that way. Every mariner in US ocean waters can call upon the Coast Guard when in distress at no cost to to the person seeking to be rescued.

Further, the government tests the drugs that we are prescribed and verifies that they do what the manufacturer claims they are supposed to do. There are of course a number of other services that are provided, but everyone relies on the government providing these services and without tax dollars being paid, these services cannot be provided.

Taxes do not go only to the “welfare state” as alleged by many on the right. The amount of money being put into the national welfare system, health insurance, food stamps, Head Start programs and other programs for the lower income groups is minimal compared to the money paid for services that are utilized by all.

So as we pay our taxes on Monday, we should be happy that our nation has devoted its time and money on these programs and ensured that we remain safe and prosperous.

Academic Accountability

2006-04-14T10:57:00.000-05:00

The No Child Left Behind Act has imposed new requirements on the nations schools. Teachers and schools are scrutinized based upon standardized tests which may or may not be relevant to the actual determination of whether the schools and teachers are performing adequately. However, if the nation wants real improvement in their school systems, then we need to reevaluate the amount of time we are willing to devote to the education process, not the testing method of evaluating the education system.

The determination of whether the schools are performing adequately by obtaining a snapshot view of a child’s reading and math levels at the end of the year does not show the child’s performance levels. A more accurate assessment of the education system is to test the students at the beginning of the year and again at the end of the year and evaluate their improvement. If a child is below reading level at the beginning of their fourth grade year, but they are closer to reading level at the end of the year, then their improvement has been significant and the schools can accurately state that they are properly educating the students and have successfully taught the student even though they may still be below level. On the other hand, if a student is at reading level when they start the fourth grade and remain at reading level at the end of the fourth grade, the child arguably has not improved. Nonetheless, the student with little or no improvement is the student the teachers are praised for having in their classrooms.

No Child Left Behind is a back door method of allowing students to leave the public school system and get into private schools with government funding (vouchers, charters, etc.) However, a recent study has shown that when public and private schools are controlled for the socio-economic differences, the pubic schools are outperforming the private schools. The public school system is merely getting criticized for doing their job and educating all of the nations children and not just those in a high income bracket who can afford to attend the private schools.

If we really want to see improvements of the school system, we need to revamp the education process, not by shifting from public to private system, but by spending more time educating our children. In most of the nation there are only 180 days of school. Most students spend less than eight hours in the classroom each day. Schools that start at 7:00 a.m. are ending around 2:00 p.m. In many teachers collective negotiations agreements the teachers are instructed that they must remain in the school for only a short amount of time after the students leave. So if students leave at 2:00 p.m., then the teachers have to remain until only 2:30 or so. Thus, if a student is looking for additional assistance, they are denied it because some teachers (not all) are leaving as soon after the last class as they can, even though they have not worked a full eight hour day as most full-time workers are required to work.

Our school systems cannot try to compete with international schools if we are not going to commit the time and energy to educating the students. The school year needs to be lengthened to at least 200 days per year, and the school day needs to become a real day of 9:00 to 5:00. During the summer, students forget a great deal of what they learned the year prior because they are not in class having the information reinforced. Further, more classes and material can be covered if the students remain in the classroom and not being unleashed early each afternoon. Only by committing the time necessary to educate our children will real improvements be accomplished.

Ex Post Facto Laws

2006-04-03T14:59:00.000-05:00

The current administration has refused to become part of the International Criminal Court, which is charged with prosecuting war crimes. Prior to the creation of the Court, the United Nations charged two International Criminal Tribunals to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Some nations refused to sign the Treaty of Rome, which created the Court, in part because the Court sought to prosecute crimes that had occurred prior to the treaty being fully executed. In other words, it was argued that the treaty and the tribunals sought to prosecute crimes ex post facto. The United States Constitution prohibits the creation of ex post facto laws as do many other nations constitutions. However, the tribunals and the Court should be allowed to prosecute the crimes that occurred even if they occurred prior to the tribunals or the Court’s creation.

This same argument was made during the Nuremberg trials. People questioned whether the Nazis could be prosecuted under laws that were established after the Nazis had committed genocide. The Nuremberg trials went forward anyway and prosecutions were successful. The creation of the laws after the committing of the offense did not undermine the legitimacy of the trials or the convictions.

There are certain acts which laws need not be created for them to shock the conscience and be deemed to be criminal. Genocide and crimes against humanity, which includes murder, rape, forced deportation, and other acts, are just such acts that if committed, even in the course of war, people know were improper and illegal. These are the types of crimes that critics say should not be prosecuted because there were established after the genocide, murders, rapes and other acts occurred. No one committing such acts nor anyone learning of these acts could reasonably question that these actions are illegal. People do not need to open up law books or international treaties to determine this; rather, the perpetrator and the observers need only search themselves for right and wrong to understand that these actions are criminal. Therefore, it is appropriate for these actions to be prosecuted regardless of when the treaties were signed.

No reasonable person would argue that the Mi Lai massacre was reprehensible and criminal. There was no international court designed to prosecute crimes at the time the massacre occurred; however, under the criminal treaties that are currently in place, these actions would constitute criminal acts that could be prosecuted. When reports of the massacre became public, the nation and the world were outraged. Everyone understood that these actions were beyond the scope of war and constituted improper and illegal actions. Had a criminal tribunal been established at the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. soldiers could have been and should have been prosecuted.

There is no difference between the Mi Lai massacre and the genocides that have occurred in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Everyone who engaged in the acts knew that the actions were beyond permissible acts of war. Once someone has gone beyond that threshold, the action should be deemed criminal and should be prosecuted. When the natural law of right and wrong has been violated, it is permissible for those criminal acts to be prosecuted regardless of when the criminal statute and international treaties were formalized.

Straight Talk Express

2006-03-25T18:19:00.000-05:00

Leading up to the 2000 appointment, rather election, many GOPers complained about how President Clinton would not talk straight about issues. He “waffled” on issues and quibbled over the definition of “is.” These qualities, according to GOPers, made him someone not to trust or worthy of leadership. These same people claimed that George Bush would be the anti-Clinton in that he was too stupid to mince words. It was claimed that he was a straight talker and would not mince words in explaining federal issues. Nonetheless, this so called straight talker ineptly tries to mince words and qualifies his actions with his mediocre word play.

During an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press the following exchange was had

Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. No doubt. (Emphasis added)

More recently, in an “impromptu” question and answer session Bush was asked the following:

Q: Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America. (Emphasis added).

These are just two examples of the numerous examples that exist of this President quibbling over definitions and exact phraseology regarding what was said and when. There is no difference between “grave and gathering” threats and Bush’s statements that there was “no doubt” that Iraq had WMDs. Nor is there any doubt that Bush and his administration made direct connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda. These representations were made in the State of the Union speeches, to the United Nation, in various speeches during the 2004 campaign and in numerous other speeches.

For people to continue to say that Bush talks straight are merely fooling themselves. He has consistently lied to the country about what he has said and it is time that his supporters and his opponents force him to talk straight about what he says and what he means on all issues.

Pre-Emptive Policy

2006-03-19T13:16:00.000-05:00

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

- President George Bush, January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address

These words created the United States policy of preemption - a policy that has been severely criticized. However, the criticism may be misplaced. It is not so much the policy that is flawed, it is George Bush’s implementation of the policy.

Every nation has the right to defend itself. When a nation can show that a real threat exists whereby military action may be taken against it by another, then the threatened nation should have the right to protect itself by taking the offensive against the threatening country. Israel was faced with just such a choice when it took military action on June 5, 1967 against Egypt and started the Six-Day War. There were pacts between Egypt and other Arab states providing that an attack on one would be deemed to be an attack on all. Israel attacked Egypt and eliminated nearly 400 Egyptian aircraft in an attempt to secure its own safety. Few if any criticize Israel’s decision to take preemptive steps to protect itself. Rather the criticism is what Israel has done with the land that it acquired as a result of the war.

Thirty-four years later, the same holds true. If a nation can show that there is a real threat against it, then that nation should be able to take military action to secure that nation’s security. If the United States is able to show that another nation or a group supported by that nation, is a military threat to it, then the United States has the right to preemptively prevent that nation for attacking the United States. The recent failure of the policy has been George Bush’s failure to show that such a threat actually existed.

Bush reluctantly went to the United Nations to make a case for the War in Iraq. Then when the case was made, there was not sufficient support to show that Iraq was a threat to the United States or other nations, nor was there a showing that military intervention was the only way for any threat Iraq may have posed to have been disposed of. The U.N. inspectors consistently reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no showing that the “no fly zone” was ineffective. There was no showing that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. Ultimately, there was a failure to show that there was a threat which justified preemptive action.

A distinction needs to be made between the idea of preemption and its legitimacy and George Bush’s irresponsible implementation of the policy. Future presidents should not be hamstrung from use of the preemptive policy because Bush lied to the nation regarding the threats which were presented to it. Rather, the nation and the world should be more diligent in holding any future administration accountable to show that there truly is a threat looming prior to allowing a preemptive war from being waged.

Political Evolution

2006-03-12T11:03:00.000-05:00

"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
- Winston Churchill.

Many Republicans concede that "We were all Democrats once." This appears to show that there is some truth to Churchill’s words. People start out idealistic and liberal seeking change, and as they grow older they become more conservative.

It likely does not matter where you start on the political spectrum when you are twenty, as you grow older you will be more suspect of change, and have less imagination as to what change will benefit your local area and the country . Life will make you more skeptical as to whether any change will actually make a significant difference, so a person likely takes a more conservative standpoint. In other words, over time life burns people enough to the point that they want to do nothing other than what is comfortable and known to them so they do not get burned again.

The equation seems to be changing. People in their 20s and 30s no longer hold liberal ideals. They are starting out life believing in conservative ideals established in the shadow of Reagan. There has been nothing but relative peace for approximately thirty-five years. They have grown-up in a time when they could ignore the government or blindly follow its lead with few consequences for their apathetic attitude.

Many of the liberal leaning that came from the Baby Boomers was in response to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. They realized that they were the ones being asked to sacrifice themselves in a War. Accordingly, they needed to assess the War and determine if it was a cause worth them literally dying for. The same was true for the Civil Rights Movement. The Baby Boomers understood that significant change was coming with regard to race relations, and that their involvement would determine what the changes entailed. In sum, they understood that their involvement was required and failure to change was unacceptable.

Generation X on the other hand has had no issues which required them to take a stand either with or against the government. Nothing has galvanized the Xers, nothing has forced them to question the conservative beliefs they were given from their parents who had evolved from protesters into conservatives. Xers have, without having to do anything, saw the end of the Cold War, were not asked to volunteer for service during the Gulf War, and as a group, has made no sacrifice in for the "War on Terrorism" or the War in Iraq. Rather, the government has asked the people to accept tax cuts and watch sanitized news coverage of the wars - smart bombs falling near the "Luckiest Man In Baghdad," embedded reporters’ censored reports, and no body bags. They have grown up with the conservative ideas that their parents have established in their later years and nothing has shaken them up to become liberals with hearts.

As these conservative twenty year olds become older they will likely become more conservative. While they may seem moderate today, they will evolve into extremists by the time they are 40. It is not a liberal to conservative migration for the Xers, it is liable to be from conservative to extremist. Such a migration is not beneficial for American politics. In the future, there will no longer be the give and take between change and status quo. It is liable to become a pull between status quo and the destruction of the government, which is what most far right conservatives are seeking. The future of the American Government and politics as we know it depends on the youth establishing a heart, and it needs to happen before they get too old.

Follow The GM Business Model

2006-03-04T17:09:00.000-05:00

General Motors is in the news because of its financial difficulty and the possibility that it will file for bankruptcy. In many of the reports that the mainstream media has presented, the employees and retirees have become the villain and the de facto reason for the financial difficulties. Additionally, management is criticized for having given such "luxurious" compensation packages to the employees over the course of the company’s history. These reports are wrong, and it is time that pundits stop criticizing GM for its past decisions, especially those which were supposedly beneficial for the employees.

At its height, GM management obviously believed that since it was doing so well it owed a great deal of its success to the employees and that the employees should share in the rewards that the company was banking. There is nothing wrong with this idea. In fact, more companies need to embrace the idea that its success cannot occur without the workers getting decent wages stabile health benefits and job security. The better the employees are treated, the less likely they will be to leave and the more likely that the experienced work force will ensure that quality product is built. Without a happy workforce, a company cannot succeed.

Ensuring that the employees are well compensated through wages and benefits is more important today than it has ever been. With CEO wages 450 times that of the average worker, the employees are becoming more resentful of those who are above them. This was evident when Northwest Airlines’ unions took pay cuts, which they were told were in the best interest of the company, but balked when management gave itself huge bonuses the next day. The mentality that workers do not care about the inequities in their pay verses their supervisors or upper management has to end. It is time that the rewards stop going only to the top, the workers who are the backbone of the company need to receive their just rewards.

GM’s problems are not a result of "lavish" employment agreements. The retirement packages that are discussed and the "high pay" for workers, and the health insurance for all employees has not resulted in GM facing bankruptcy. These problems are largely based upon poor marketing and product decisions made by the high paid managers. Companies should pay their workers $20.00 per hour, which is what the average GM worker makes. That is only $40,000 per year. Such an income only places a person in the 40th percentile of the average incomes in the nation. In other words, 60% of the rest of the nation’s workers make more than GM’s average worker. $20/hour is not lavish; it is merely a middle class wage, and paying someone a middle class income cannot be deemed unreasonable or lavish.

Also, it is time that companies start accepting the obligation of providing retiree health care. Federal and state government administrations are drastically cutting Medicare and Medicaid funding. Unless universal health care is established, employers are going to have to take on the obligation for retiree health insurance if for no other reason than to encourage people to retire. As employees grow older, they will be more prone to get sick and need additional medication. If they do not have access to medical health insurance, they may be unwilling or unable to retire because they know they will not be able to afford their healthcare costs. Thus, the more it appears that Medicare and Medicaid will go defunct, the more important it will become that employers take on the responsibility of providing such coverage.

GM was way ahead of the curve on all of these issues. It provided its employees middle class wages. It promised that its employees would be able to retire and have an good income and it promised that it would provide retiree health insurance. All of these commitments are necessary in order for a company to show that it is interested in the well being of the employees. The more the company looks to the employee’s well being, the more the employees will look out for the company’s best interests- thereby creating greater profits for the company. This is the synergy that is necessary to ensure a prosperous and health business.

It is time to start praising GM for understanding this necessity and praise it for standing by its obligations even as it continues to face financial difficulty.

Figure Skating Is Not A Sport

2006-02-18T11:56:00.000-05:00

It is ridiculous that ice skating is in the Olympics. It is not a sport and should not be given any credibility by receiving the international stamp of approval. Ice skating is nothing more than performing on ice, which does not constitute a sport. It should be removed from the Olympics, so we do not have to continue listening to the soap opera dramas that are associated with it.

A sport is very simple. There must be a objective method to determine who the winner and loser are. In many sports a person is racing against the clock - an unforgiving force and something that cannot be manipulated. In other sports, the athlete is competing with another to score more points. That’s it.

Any activity where there is a “judge” who will provide some subjective score to determine which performer is the winner falls outside the definition of a sport. The Olympics is designed to have athletes compete with one another in sports, not performances - leave those awards up to the Tonies or the Academy.

The debacle in the 2002 Olympics is a case in point. The French judge was on the take so she sandbagged one of the ice skating competitors and gave them a score that was way out of range with the other judges. Then this big turmoil arose as to how a judge could be on the take in the “prestigious” Olympics - which was already marred by the call girl scandal (much more interesting than a French ice skating judge). If ice skating had an objective perspective that could not be tampered with this brew haha would never had occurred. The reality is that the event is completely subjective, which prevents it from receiving any credibility.

There are a number of performances that the Olympics appear to hang on to. Diving, synchronized swimming, freestyle aerials, etc. This is not to say that these and other performance based events are not difficult, they are just not sports. Ballet dancing is difficult. So is rock climbing. Neither of these are in the Olympics, because the world is content to rank these as activities and not sports. There is no difference between ballet dancing and ice skating in terms of how they should be evaluated for a place in the Olympics. Neither should be there.

There will always be some form of human error in sports. A baseball umpire can call balls and strikes differently for different teams, which will result in a different result for the ultimate score. Many sports have sought to eliminate the subjective aspect. American football has instituted the instant replay so under certain circumstances the referees can review the tv camera to determine if the call made on the field was accurate. Horse racing has had the photo finish for many many years, so an unbiased viewpoint can be used to determine the winner. These kind of checks cannot be implemented for the subjective activities.

It is time to take the soap opera out of the Olympics and stick to serious sports drama such as the Miracle on Ice and other great moments in sports history.

Faux Science

2006-02-14T12:25:00.000-05:00

The former Governor of New Jersey, Christie Whitman, who left office to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2000 was recently interviewed. One of the commentators asked her a question about global warming and she was emphatic that it is not "global warming" but rather "global climate change." The reason for this distinction, according to Governor/Secretary Whitman, is that not everywhere in the world is going to warm up; rather the climate will change. It is true that scientific predictions show that due to human activity not everywhere in the world will get warmer. For instance, the predictions are that Western Europe will become much colder and possible even similar to a tundra.

Contrary to Governor Whitman’s statement, it is "Global Warming" and not "Global Climate Change." The issue is not that Global Warming is going to cause everyplace in the world to become warmer, the point is that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing causing the climates of the world to change. If Governor Whitman, who was recently the former head of the EPA, does not understand what "Global Warming" refers to, then it is apparent that this entire administration does not understand the term or the issue. This may, in part, explain why the Bush Administration refused to reduce the amount of arsenic in drinking water, pulled out of the Kyoto Climate Treaty, seeks to drill oil in ANWAR, and walked out of the Montreal Climate Summit - they did not understand the environmental issues with which they were presented.

The Administration, with backing from corporations like Exxon-Mobile, maintains that Global Warming is not actually occurring. It is argued that the Earth goes through cycles of warm and cold and scientists cannot show a causal link because carbon emissions and global warming. Some Republicans, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), argue that Global Warming is the "greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." They even stand on the Senate floor and point to the novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton as support for the notion that Global Warming is not occurring.

Michael Crichton also wrote a book about an island full of dinosaurs that was going to be used as an amusement park. Do the people that use State of Fear as support for their argument regarding Global Warming also believe that Jurassic Park is based in fact? If Jurassic Park is not based in fact, then what makes them think that State of Fear is? If they do think there is a dinosaur park on some remote island somewhere, do we really think these people are credible to speak about issues of science such as Global Warming, and do we really want these people running our country? Many of these same people are also attacking the teaching of evolution in schools. Are these the people we want deciding what our science curriculum should be?

Despite their objections to the science supporting "Global Warming," the consensus is that it is occurring. It is also the scientific consensus that human activity is a significant contributor to the Global Warming. Since we have a government that is antagonistic and obviously misinformed on this as well as other sound scientific theories, what is the incentive to believe anything the Administration or the Republican Party says on any scientific matter? There is none, and it is time that the people force the Administration and the Republican Party to acknowledge that they are and traditionally have been wrong on these issues to the detriment of the Country.

The American Rule

2006-02-04T16:09:00.000-05:00

One idea for tort reform is to have the loser of a lawsuit pay the costs and attorneys fees for the prevailing party. It is believed that this rule, if implemented, would prevent "frivolous" lawsuits from being filed. While a rule requiring losers to pay in all situations would likely reduce the number of lawsuits from being filed, it would not serve the ends of justice we seek to have our court system achieve.

The rule discussed is commonly referred to as the "English Rule" because in Great Britain, the loser of a lawsuit is required to pay the costs and fees of the prevailing party. The "American Rule" has traditionally been that each party pays for their own representation. There are some exceptions to the American Rule. For instance, in federal civil rights cases, if the plaintiff wins, he/she can require that the government pay the costs and attorneys fees expended to vindicate the person’s rights. There are also specific statutes on the federal and state levels that provide for a prevailing party to be awarded attorneys fees. For the most part, however, every party is responsible for their own attorney’s costs.

For over ten years people were suing the tobacco companies alleging that the product that they put on the market was dangerous as designed and the tobacco companies should have been held liable for the harm caused by their product. For over ten years, the tobacco companies took a hard line stance on the issue and required that each and every case go to trial. This strategy served several purposes. First, the tobacco companies did not want to set a precedence of paying damage awards to anyone who died of lung cancer. Second, they figured they could win number of the cases through a war of attrition, which is to say the tobacco companies knew they could out spend the plaintiffs, inundate that plaintiffs with hoards of paper, and a number of the cases would go away simply because the plaintiffs could not afford to continue fighting the legal battles. This strategy worked for a long time.

In the late 1990s the first cases against the tobacco companies was won. A jury, for the first time, awarded a plaintiff with a stunning victory against one of the largest corporations in the nation. This seemingly anomalous result came about when it was learned that the tobacco companies had lied about knowing just how addictive their product was and their work to manipulate the addictive nature of the product. Now the tobacco companies are settling or consistently losing the cases that are brought against them.

During the years they were winning cases, the tobacco companies were able to pay for extensive legal representation. They paid the top firms huge sums of money to have numerous attorneys work on each case throughout the country. The attorneys’ fees were likely in the millions for each and every case that went to trial.

For ten years, plaintiffs lost their cases, but were they frivolous cases? At the time, they probably seemed to have been, but in retrospect, it is clear that they were appropriate. Additionally, it was in large part the ground work laid by the early cases that have allowed the later cases to succeed. Under the English Rule, however, each of the plaintiffs who lost the early cases would have been required to pay millions of dollars to the tobacco companies for their attorneys’ fees. This would have bankrupted even the most prosperous of plaintiffs.

The plaintiff has no control over the type of legal representation that corporations retain. Some corporations will retain the largest most expensive firms. Some corporations, like the tobacco companies, will not only retain these large expensive firms, but they will also seek to have numerous attorneys from those firms work on each and every case. It is not appropriate for the corporations to become immune from lawsuit simply because they are able to scare people out of bringing suit, even legitimate suits, based upon the fear of having to pay millions of dollars in the corporation’s attorneys’ fees in the event the plaintiff loses.

The English rule would have prevented the tobacco companies from ever getting sued for the hazards they created. It would have probably prevented Ford from being sued over the Pinto or the SUV rollovers, and it would have prevented a number of other cases which are meritorious from being brought simply because everyone knows that these corporations can outspend any individual that might consider suing a large conglomerate. This type of tort reform is bad policy and should be avoided and resisted by everyone who looks to the courts to assist people to vindicate their rights.

Foreign Reliance

2006-01-29T10:00:00.001-05:00

The head of the Government Accounting Office, David Walker, has severe criticism for the Congress due to its fiscal irresponsibility. He has said in Business Week Magazine that the current course is liable to lead to the economic destruction of this nation just as fiscal irresponsibility destroyed the Roman Empire.

This is not the first time the United States has engaged in fiscal irresponsibility to the point of possibly bankrupting the nation; however, it is the first time our government has acted with reckless malice while the nation has been the economic powerhouse of the world. The Guilded Age and the 1920s were both decades with the government and the people spending out of control. During neither of those decades was the United States looked upon as the most important world market, which is why those times are different from the times we are currently in. If the United State’s cannot reign in its current spending, then its entire economy could collapse and with it could go the entire world.

The world market is financing the reckless spending. China is one of the nation’s biggest creditors. It is constantly purchasing US bonds which are then used to pay the interest and payments on the deficit. It is dangerous to have China and other nations continue to finance this nation’s economy mainly because at any time China could decide to no longer purchase the US bonds and economic ruin would result.

If China invaded Taiwan, the United States would be politically obligated to intervene militarily. Or if North Korea announced that it was going to return to its prior policy of building nuclear weapons and the United States determined that it was in the nation and world’s best interest to militarily intervene in the nuclear weapons proliferation, China could decide that it will retaliate by stopping its constant purchases of US bonds. The United States would be in desperate need of money to finance the new wars, yet its largest financier would have disappeared.
Without China continuing to purchase the bonds, economic ruin could result. The United States could face the same scenario as Argentina just a few years ago when all of its debt was called in and Argentina could not pay it. The nation spiraled into depression and unemployment spiked. Argentina’s currency became worthless almost overnight.

Many economist say this could never happen to the US, but such rosy eyed views of the future are misplaced. There is no reason to think that the US will continue to be the world’s dominant economy. In years past the Netherlands dominated the world economy and then it was Great Britain. When they were the economic heavy weights they believed that the good times would never end, but they did. While it may now be the US which is the economic gorilla, it will not always be that way. Since China holds a significant amount of the US debt, if China wanted to become the next dominant economy it could send the US into ruin for the sole purpose of allowing China to become the principal economy.

The GOP has taken away protections for Americans who have over extended themselves financially, such as the bankruptcy protections. The GOP did this while saying that the people have to be responsible for their own actions. Yet, the GOP refuses to be responsible for its own actions. It refuses to stop the frenzied spending and reckless tax cuts. This course will result in a continued dependence on other nations and one day bankruptcy of the entire nation could result. The only question is, who will be there to pick up the pieces when it does occur.

The Fundamental Questions

2006-01-19T23:42:00.000-05:00

During the recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings questioning, Judge Alito, among other things, said that Roe v. Wade was an important case and since the decision had been affirmed on more than one occasion, its precedence must be respected. Judge Alito’s responses were circular and were not enlightening in the least about how he would rule on a matter concerning abortion.

The issue around Roe is not whether precedence requires that the decision be upheld; rather, whether a fundamental right can be taken away whenever political expediency mandates such a reversal. A fundamental right is one that is so inherent and so embodied in the Constitution that it is beyond the government’s ability to restrict or remove it. No right has been deemed fundamental and then subsequently removed by the Supreme Court.

Roe established a fundamental right in a women’s right to privacy within their own body which includes being allowed to obtain an abortion under specific circumstances. The fact that abortion has been deemed to be fundamental requires that it forever remain part of the rights embodied in the American people.

The Senators asked Judge Alito if time was a factor in determining whether a case must be upheld or could be overturned. One example that was used during the questioning was whether it was proper for Plessy v. Ferguson to be reversed by Brown v. Board of Education nearly fifty years after Plessy was decided. What was not discussed or acknowledged was that there is a significant difference between the "separate but equal" doctrine set forth in Plessy, which is merely a national policy, and the fundamental right created in Roe. Plessy did not grant a right in a class of persons; rather, it prevented a group of people from obtaining a right and was used to suppress blacks. Whereas, Roe established a fundamental right that is inherent in the American people and firmly embedded in the Constitution. No amount of time can pass to remove this fundamental right in the same way that politics altered over the course of fifty years to go from separate but equal to integration. Fundamental rights, once created, must be deemed to be sacrosanct. Such rights cannot be taken away not just because precedence precludes the Court from removing the right, but because the Constitution prohibits such a removal of the right.

Bush v. Gore created a fundamental right. It is the only decision by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the counting of ballots and the requirement that it be done consistently throughout specific areas. This case cannot be overturned the next time a vote counting case comes to the Court just because there is no other case affirming the decision but because it created a fundamental right. Such a right once articulated becomes integral in society and even the Supreme Court should not be able to remove such rights.

Judge Alito should have been asked when the last time the Court removed a fundamental right from the American people and under what circumstances a fundamental right could be taken away. The correct answer is that a fundamental right can never be taken away. If Judge Alito responded with anything other than a fundamental right can never be taken away, then it would have been clear that he disregards the Constitution and only serves his political ends. Since the questions were not properly asked, we will never know what Judge Alito’s opinion is on this important issue.

Taking Personal Responsibility

2006-01-07T15:16:00.000-05:00

Relatively recently, some high profile legislation has either been introduced into or passed by Congress giving corporations an unprecedented free pass on the injuries their products cause to consumers. One piece of legislation is the infamous "Cheeseburger Bill" which would allow fast food restaurants to be immune from so called obesity lawsuits. The lawsuits allege that McDonalds and other similar companies are liable to the person for their obesity. Another corporate immunity bill, which was passed, is for the gun industry, and it prevents people from suing gun manufacturers for injuries sustained by their product. The currently pending lawsuits allege that the gun manufacturers intentionally place more guns than the market can handle into the market stream of states with lax gun laws such a Virginia. These guns then make their way up the "iron pipeline" (e.g., the NJ Turnpike) and are sold illegally in northeastern states.
Champions of these pieces of legislation argue that the lawsuits merely require that people (i.e., potential plaintiffs) take personal responsibility for their own actions and not try to hold corporations responsible for the person’s own decisions to use these products. But when is the corporation responsible for its actions?

When a corporation puts a product on the market that is dangerous to the user then the corporation should be held responsible for the injuries its product causes. The corporation made the conscious decision to place the product on the market despite there being dangers to the unsuspecting public. The corporation is in the best position to know what dangers their product poses and the corporation must be held responsible for failing to pull an unreasonably dangerous product off the market or at a minimum warning the consumer of the potential hazards their product can cause.

For a decade lawyers sued the tobacco companies arguing that the companies placed a dangerous product on the market, which, when used as designed, caused lung ailments and resulted in death of the consumer. Eventually, juries started ruling against the tobacco companies when it was learned that the companies had lied about their product and had conducted experiments to ensure that the product was addictive. Despite the first victories for the tobacco companies, the plaintiffs kept bringing suit and eventually, the truth about the product was placed in front of a jury and the tobacco company lost. Additionally, states started suing the tobacco industries for the medicaid costs associated with tobacco related illnesses. The state lawsuits terminated in a settlement of over $200 billion.

The book Fast Food Nation details how the fast food industry adds specific ingredients into their products to create addictive properties. Specific amounts of salts and sugars in the hamburgers establish an addictive nature to them so that the consumer is sure to return. Additionally, the product is largely marketed to children, so they will establish the addiction early in life, and the companies seek to have people eat their product several times per week despite the high calorie content and the potential for the consumers becoming obese and unhealthy. The direct result of obesity from fast food restaurants can be tracked through obesity’s dramatic increase in nations where McDonalds is newly opening: Japan and African nations. This is evidence that the fast food industry produces and knowingly markets a product which is dangerous to the consumer. Yet, Congress is trying to protect the industry from being held responsible for producing harmful products.

Today we would not say that Ford should have been immune from lawsuits caused because of the defect in the Ford Pinto a defect Lee Iaccoca knew of prior to the car being placed on the market or Chevrolet for its Corvair. Today, few would deny that the tobacco industry should be held responsible for its malfeasance, so why should the fast food industry or the gun industry receive a free pass for placing unsafe products on the market. Holding the corporations responsible for the injuries they cause consumers is not a result of the consumers failing to take personal responsibility, it is holding the corporations responsible for their personal actions.

Pay to Stop Terrorism

2005-12-30T15:01:00.000-05:00

The United States spends less money on foreign aid, compared to its GDP, than almost any other nation. Despite the war in Darfur, famines in Niger, and other atrocities occurring, the United States continues to be stingy with its money. This lack of spending, despite the obvious need, is at the core of the reason why the United States continues to spend billions upon billions ever month on the military to fight the "War on Terror."

One of the many things that the United States should have learned from its time in Somalia is that in many of the world’s nations, there is severe poverty. Many nations lack what Americans consider to be basic infrastructure. They do not have telephone lines, sewer systems, paved roads, running water and other things that are taken for granted here. As those nations’ citizens complain about their low quality of life, they continue to blame the United States for their squalor. The blame may not be properly placed, but the US is the most visible nation in the world making it the easiest nation to point at and accuse.

By blaming the United States, terrorist organizations were able to aggressively recruit Somalis to fight against the United States during the US occupation of Somalia. The terrorist organizations argued that it was the US that was to blame for there not being any food to eat and for the crumbling cities. This made sense to the people, so they raised up and successfully fought against the US.

The argument continues today. People all over the world blame the US for the substandard conditions they endure. As they blame the US, they start actively opposing the United States by doing such things as joining terrorist organizations.

If the United States wants to stem this tide of new recruits for terrorist organizations, it must stop being so tight with the purse strings. The United States needs to be in the forefront to forgive foreign debt so nations can stop paying more on the interest for IMF loans than the nation spends on its own well-being. Secondly, the US needs to dramatically increase the amount of money it gives in foreign aid. It needs to provide African, Asian and South American nations significant amounts of money to assist them in building up their infrastructure and improving the quality of life for each of the nations’ citizens. The US needs to also be sure that it gets credit for the funding, so it will be visible that it is trying to improve the lives of everyone in the world.

The more active the United States becomes in foreign affairs and the more the general world population sees the government trying to raise all boats with rising tides, the less reasonable the argument will be that the US is to blame for the conditions of certain nations. If this argument can be undermined, then there will be fewer people buying into its logic and joining terrorist organizations based upon such reasoning. The obvious result to there being fewer people who join terror organizations is that the US will not be required to spend as much money on military actions around the world or on security at home.

Currently, the US is spending $8 - 10 billion per month in Iraq. Surely some of this money could be better spent on preventative measures and foreign aid than on this failed military effort.

X-Judges

2005-12-26T16:19:00.000-05:00

In two weeks the confirmation hearings for Judge Alito will begin under the helm of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). Specter is known to be a relatively moderate Republican. He often tows the party line; however, he is pro-choice and must get re-elected in a “swing state” in 2010. There was controversy over his receiving the Judicial Committee chairmanship position when he stated that he would use his position as chairman to block “extremist” judges appointed by President Bush. He ultimately retracted this statement, but regardless of his subsequent statements, he made it clear what his position on ideological judges is and will be.

Thanks to Bush’s incompetence, Judge Alito’s nomination did not occur until relatively late in 2005, and the confirmation hearings were scheduled for after the holidays. Had Bush not nominated the unqualified Harriet Miers, it is possible the Alito nomination hearings would have been held by now, and it is likely that a confirmation vote would have resulted in Alito being placed on the high court. Things are different now, however.

Until recently, the only issues that the Judiciary Committee was going to have to address was whether Alito would affirm Roe v. Wade as the Supreme Court has done on at least two occasions and whether Alito can be trusted to recuse himself when he has a conflict of interest with a litigant in a matter he is hearing unlike Justice Scalia who hears cases regardless of a potential conflict of interest. Now, however, thanks to the delay in the confirmation hearing process, a new and potentially devastating issue has cropped up - domestic spying.

Alito wrote a 1985 memo stating that the government has the authority to engage in domestic spying and that even if it did not, the Attorney General should receive immunity for any illegal acts he may commit in the process of conducting domestic spying operations. This appears to be a position that is consistent with the Administration’s actions giving the NSA authority to track domestic communication despite a 1978 law prohibiting it.

This one issue could and should derail Alito’s nomination. The nation is outraged at the idea that our government would conduct domestic spying activities and circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under FISA the administration could easily have obtained warrants to conduct legitimate operations; in fact in the history of the Act, only 4 requests have been turned down. The circumvention of the Act indicates that the surveillance was on improper persons and for illegitimate reasons.

Alito’s support for such activities, especially in conjunction with his position on abortion and his refusal to recuse himself when his own personal finances could be affected by his decision, shows that he is an “extremist” judge that must be denied confirmation. This is the very type of judge Sen. Specter said he would block, and it is time that the good Senator made good on his promise.

Only the Healthy Stay Insured

2005-12-20T23:13:00.000-05:00

As people continue to be forced to rely upon employer based healthcare insurance anyone who is in the greatest need for healthcare are being shut out and denied the medical access they need.

As the system is currently set up, a person must have a job with an employer which provides healthcare coverage. Alternatively, a person needs to be married or related to a person who holds a job with an employer that provides healthcare insurance. In the day and age when many people are not married to the person they live with or are homosexual and are not allowed to marry their partner, there are a significant number of people who cannot get access to healthcare insurance through their partners.

Even the people who have healthcare insurance are one sickness away from being without any insurance. If a person gets too sick to work for more than twelve weeks, there is no national law which requires that the employer continue paying or providing an employee with healthcare insurance. On the thirteenth week that a person has a serious health condition which prevents them from working is the end of that person’s access to healthcare coverage because they will have been dropped from their employer based health insurance plan.

Federal law requires that when a person leaves a job that the employer offer the employee eighteen months worth of healthcare coverage at the employee’s expense. It is unlikely that many people who lose their jobs due to a serious health condition can pay the premiums for the COBRA coverage, which is likely over $300 per month. If the person is too sick to work, then it is unlikely that they can afford such expensive healthcare insurance.

Ultimately, the person who needs healthcare insurance the most, a person with a serious health condition, is most at risk of losing his/her healthcare insurance because the person is too sick to work and therefore has no access to the insurance. If the person loses their healthcare insurance, then they will likely start being denied the quality healthcare that is necessary for them to get healthy. In the end they are more likely to die or stay sick for a longer period of time than necessary because this nation continues to adhere to the arcane employment based healthcare system.

The irony of the system is that those who need healthcare coverage the least are the people who have the easiest time getting the coverage. The people who are healthy enough to work full-time at a decent job which provides benefits gets the coverage. Many of these people do not utilize it often or at all. From an insurance companies perspective this may be beneficial because they are collecting premiums from people for whom they are not paying large amounts of money to. This translates into profits for the insurance companies.

Health insurance should not be provided only to the people who make the insurance companies the largest profit they can acquire. Most people are trying to do the right thing. They are working hard and providing a roof over their children’s head. They should not be denied access to medical health care when they need it the most, when they acquire a serious health condition.

Employment Based Healthcare Has To End

2005-12-12T20:18:00.000-05:00

The United States continues to adhere to its arcane system of providing employer based healthcare. That is to say medical insurance is through a person’s employer opposed to the government or other source. It is too expensive for an individual to go out and purchase healthcare insurance on their own, so we continue to rely upon our employers to purchase the insurance for us and hope that we will only be required to pay a small portion of the total cost.

Many employees do not have the luxury of having an employer who provides health insurance for them. Many headlines have recently focused on the fact that the largest employer in the world, Wal-Mart, provides a minority of its employees with healthcare insurance. While on the other side of the spectrum, GM is arguably sinking into bankruptcy in part due to the total cost of its health insurance coverage for its current and former employees.

Regardless of whether someone believes that an employer should have the option of providing its employees healthcare insurance like Wal-Mart or whether one believes that GM’s financial hardships are due in large part to its health insurance cost is immaterial. What the nation needs to recognize is that employer based healthcare insurance is illogical and detrimental to all involved.

Employers struggle with how to pay for the high cost of health insurance. GM spends approximately one billion dollars per year to pay for its current employees health insurance costs. It could be paying up to four billion dollars to cover all of its retirees and current employees for healthcare costs alone. The fact that so much money is being removed from an employers bottom line and going to only healthcare costs does not make sense in a global economy when many of GM’s competitors are international companies and do not have such overhead costs. Thus, US companies are at a disadvantage in business because they have to spend so much money on healthcare opposed to spending the money on R&D or other required areas of their business.

Employers are also at a disadvantage due to employment based healthcare insurance because whenever employees come to the table to discuss their future employment, they ultimately start discussing who is going to pay for healthcare insurance for the coming year. Spring CWA members are currently striking in part due to the healthcare coverage cost. The grocery stores in California were striking a few years ago because of Wal-Mart moving in and reducing wages and healthcare coverage benefits. GM barely diverted a strike when it finally obtained a compromise with the UAW over medical healthcare coverage. Finally, the New York City MTA is concerned that its employees could start striking this week due to the healthcare coverage issue. Whenever one of these companies has a strike because a compromise over healthcare coverage occurs, these companies are losing a significant amount of money as a result of the strike and have lost a significant amount of money in legal fees leading up to the strike that it would not have had to pay had it not been an issue. Moreover, if the NYC MTA strikes, the amount of money lost due to the economic heartland for the nation, possibly the world, shuts down as a result of healthcare insurance. Billions of billions of dollars around the world could be lost because many Wall Street employees and others will not be able to get to and from work during the strike. This in itself should encourage the nation to start looking at other healthcare insurance systems.

There is no economic benefit to this nation to continue paying the high costs for healthcare insurance, and we are doing business a disservice by requiring that they flip the bill for healthcare insurance when their competitors are not concerned with such issues.

Update: It was reported today (12/13/05) that if the MTA goes on strike, which is illegal but has happened before, it would cost the City approximately $200 million per day due to private companies' employees not being able to get to work and people not being able to travel through the City easily. The last time the MTA went on strike it lasted eight days. In other words, an MTA strike over healthcare insurance could cost New York City companies $1.6 billion. It is a substantial cost to the private businesses for not supporting universal healthcare.

The Cost Of Oil

2005-11-30T22:26:00.000-05:00

Oil costs just over $57 per barrel. This seems like a significant drop in price compared to the $65 per barrel that was being paid in August. Considering just two years ago, OPEC sought to maintain the cost of oil at $20 - $25 per barrel because this promoted stability regarding the commodity, the drop in the current oil cost is not significant at all since we are still nearly three times more than OPEC’s preferred price.

The cost of a gallon of gas and heating oil do not reflect the actual cost of oil on the open market. When the cost of oil was only $20 per barrel the cost of a gallon of gas was just over $1.50. For the past couple of years, the costs have slowly increased, but when it hit $65 per barrel we suddenly saw gas costs at over $3 per gallon. Now that the cost of oil has come down a mere $8 per barrel we are again seeing the cost of gas back around $2 per gallon. In fact, the cost at the pump, right before hurricane Katrina, went up three time faster than the cost of crude.* These swings in price do not seem proportionate with one another.

The oil companies have recently announced that they have made record profits. The major oil companies in the US announced that they have made tens of billions of dollars in profits for the first nine months of the year: Exxon-Mobile $25 Billion (the most profitable corporation in the world); Royal Dutch Shell $21 Billion; British Petroleum $15 Billion; Conoco Phillips $10 Billion; and Chevron-Texaco $10 Billion. The high costs of gas coupled with record profits shows that these companies are using their monopoly on the commodity to improperly jack up prices and unjustly reward themselves with unseemly profits.

There are only five major oil companies in the United States today. Since the cost of oil and the cost of gasoline are not moving in proportion to one another, and all of the oil companies have gasoline prices within a few cents of one another, it would appear that there is a coordinated effort to increase the prices collectively. In other words, the oil companies appear to be colluding to increase prices and generate these profits. Such actions, if true, are a violation of the anti-trust laws.

If oil companies are jointly manipulating the cost of gas and home heating oil to improperly maintain artificially high costs and profits, then they are in violation of the law. Anti-trust laws were created to prevent just such a scenario. While we know the US Attorney General, who is an employee of an administration in the pockets of big oil will not go after these trust violators as the federal government did when Teddy Roosevelt was President, we must wonder where the state attorney generals such as Elliot Spitzer are as this price gouging continues.

* As reported by the Energy Information Administration

We Don't Torture?

2005-11-23T12:47:00.000-05:00

The Senate recently voted on an amendment to an appropriations bill which would prohibit all United States entities such as the military and CIA from torturing any enemy combatants or prisoners of war. The amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) passed overwhelmingly (90-9). The White House, however, was opposed to the amendment. The President has said that the United States is following the law, and it is not torturing any of the prisoners or detainees it is holding. For this reason, the White House opposed the amendment and has even threatened to veto the bill in the event the amendment remains apart of the bill. (It should first be noted that this President has not vetoed any legislation to date, so the threat of a veto seems empty at best.) The White House opposed the amendment to the point that it made a point of having VP Cheney go to the Hill to try and whip votes.

It is disingenuous for a White House to say that it is following the law, not torturing anyone, (although it was caught red handed when it tortured prisoners in Abu Gharib), and being opposed to an amendment which requires the administration to continue to do exactly what the administration says it is doing. In other words, the administration says it is complying with the proposed bill. If it is complying with the proposed law, why would the administration be concerned with it becoming law? If what the administration is telling the public is truthful, then the administration is opposed to a law requiring it to continue operating in the exact fashion that it is currently acting.

Opposition to something that would require no change should make people suspect that what the administration is telling the public is not truthful. On this topic specifically, the administration’s credibility is already low. When the War in Afghanistan started and Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was first set up, the Administration argued that the detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention because they did not belong to a national army. Rather, the Administration argued that it was in its own discretion what to do with the detainees. This argument seems to have been, for the most part, died away as the Administration received a significant amount of political pressure from home and abroad. Nonetheless, we know that there were memos circulated within the White House which redefined torture to be only that activity which would cause organ failure or death. It is clear that there is a great deal more that could constitute torture than just these activities. Is this the definition of torture the President uses when he says we don’t torture?

Considering the Administration was opposed to following the mandates of the Geneva Convention from the outset of the military actions, and it has given such an expansive definition to what is permissible, it is unlikely that the Administration is following the Convention regarding torture. It is unlikely that the Senate Amendment would impose any new obligations on the Administration that the Geneva Convention does not already impose. Thus, opposing the amendment is akin to opposing the Geneva Convention, again.

The Washington Post recently reported that there are black-op prisons in various parts of the world including Eastern Europe. The prisoners who are being held there are likely not documented such that the Red Cross can visit them and confirm their health and treatment. (Another requirement of the Geneva Convention). These "ghost detainees" are especially susceptible to being tortured and there is no recourse for them since no one knows of their existence.

It is a disgrace that the Administration opposes following the Geneva Convention and the proposed law. Such opposition establishes the strong inference that a great deal of torture is going on and if this country was appalled by Abu Grahib, then we should prepare ourselves for when the truth comes out about what has been occurring in Gitmo and other detention centers.

Universal Healthcare Is Good For Business and the Economy

2005-11-14T22:07:00.000-05:00

As a general rule, Republicans oppose the idea of universal healthcare. They point to anecdotes of Canadians traveling to the United States for medical treatments like transplant surgery. It is claimed that the reason the Canadians have to travel to the United States is because the list for the surgery is too long in Canada due to the universal health coverage. It is unlikely that the reason the people are not receiving kidney transplants is due to the health care system. It is more likely that a population of approximately 30 million people does not have the necessary number of transplantable organs available to accommodate all of the people who are in need of them. In contrast the United States, with approximately ten time the population, is more likely to have organs that match the patient’s criteria.

What the GOP does not point out, and the Democrats do not seem to be doing any better in showing, is that universal healthcare would be good for the economy and benefit businesses. This benefit is a reason that should be put front and center in the argument for universal healthcare.

General Motors recently settled a labor contract with the United Auto Workers. One of the sticking points for the agreement was the amount of money that the employees were going to pay for their healthcare coverage. The UAW agreed to begin paying toward their own healthcare coverage. This is the first time the UAW workers have had to pay anything toward their healthcare insurance. However, GM is still at a severe disadvantage compared to its competition. GM pays approximately $4 billion per year in medical health insurance for its employees. This is a significant amount of money that its competitors, such as Toyota, are not paying. The result is that Toyota is able to spend the money it is saving on research and development and on other areas which make it more competitive and the dominant car company.

Companies like GM should be in the forefront of lobbing for universal health care. Their taxes would go up, but they would shed the burden of paying healthcare costs. They would stop having to extend labor negotiations due to differences in how much the employer and the employee are each going to contribute to healthcare costs. The bottom line is it will save money by having the country go to universal healthcare and those savings can go to becoming more competitive against their international competitors.

Some companies have already determined that healthcare costs are so high that they cannot remain competitive if they pay the high cost. Wal-Mart is famous for avoiding having to pay healthcare costs for its employees. Among the ways it does this is keeping employees’ hours lower than is required for eligibility for healthcare coverage. Wal-Mart also provides its employees information as to how to get onto public assistance for healthcare coverage, which raises the cost to the government for having Wal-Mart continue to grow and place its box stores in communities. Wal-Mart engages in a number of other cost cutting methodologies, but not paying healthcare costs is one major one which saves it a substantial amount of money.

To avoid making our companies uncompetitive to international competition or having companies circumvent providing healthcare coverage all together, the United States needs to implement a universal healthcare system. The cost will fall onto the shoulders of everyone: Corporations and individuals. The tax increase will likely be more than offset by the savings gained from ceasing to pay for healthcare coverage.

The political party that claims it is pro-business should be the party that is out front on this issue. The country will not be competitive in the world marketplace until universal healthcare is instituted and failure to be competitive is bad for the economy.