. . . Then Act Like A Super-Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.