Sunday, December 13, 2015


Trump’s Immigration Plan is a Big Mistake
Use Immigrants to Fight ISIS

 
Donald Trump’s plan to completely close the door to immigrant from the Middle East is a big mistake for several reasons.  This short article will explain why.  First, America was founded by immigrants.  Unless you’re Native American, we are all immigrants.  Trump’s mother was born in Scotland and his father’s parents (i.e. Trump’s grand parents) were born in Germany.  America is a nation created by immigrants and our diversity has been one of the reasons that America has led the world in technology and creativity.  Immigrants are one of our strengths.

            Secondly, many of the immigrants coming to this country, came because they were fleeing religious persecution.  How is justice served if we close our doors to those seeking asylum from war torn countries, based on their religious beliefs?  We would be breaking one of America’s most sacred oaths, “religious freedom”.

            Next, propaganda expounded by Islamic terrorists teaches how western civilization detests the Moslem religion.  Forbidding Moslem immigrants into the U. S. would play directly into the hands of these fundamentalists, reinforce their statements.

            Finally there is an opportunity here for the U. S. to recruit Middle East immigrants to help fight against terrorism.  Who is more motivated to rid their home country of terrorist than those who have lost their loved ones, lost their homes to terrorist thugs?  A properly trained and armed immigrant force could make excellent recruits to fight for their own home and family.  After all, the immigrants speak the language, know the culture and beliefs of their terrorist enemy.  The U. S. should develop a program, along with other coalition nations, to recruit and develop a native fighting force and fight fire with fire.          

            There is a natural desire to fortify our safety by limiting immigrants that can do us harm.  Even though our intelligence agencies are working hard to identify every terrorist that may sneak in with the thousands of other innocent people, there is no guarantee that every terrorist will be found.  On the other hand, our actions may actually do us more harm than good by providing addition propaganda to terrorist recruiters.  In addition, we are a nation founded on principles.  We cannot just shove aside those principles whenever it suits us.  If we do, then we stand for nothing.
 
by Terry AmRhein
Author of Democracy on the Edge
available at www.amrheinsbooks.com

   
 

Saturday, December 12, 2015


If you had three wishes.

 

In the spirit of peace and good will toward all men, my wife asked me last night what would I wish for if I had three wishes, then she immediately applied the rule, “you cannot ask for three more wishes”, which took the words right out of my month.

            I had to think about it for awhile.  What would I wish for, that’s not an easy question to answer.  After contemplating for a little while, I responded

            - I’d wish that I would die before everyone that I loved (My brother died before my         mother.  That must have been terrible for her).

            - I’d wish that I lived a long happy and healthy live (which means that my loved one         would also live a long life because of my first wish) and

            - I’d wish that when the time comes, that I would go fast and not linger around in misery             spending all my heir’s inheritance.

After I divulged these rather morbid wishes, my wife reviled what her three wishes would be

            - That the Islamic State, ISIS, would be quickly and thoroughly destroyed.

            - That the world would find a solution to global warming and

            - That the finally we would reach world peace. 

(Had to smile at this last wish because it remained me of Steve Martin’s comedy routine in which he lists his three wishes that starts out with “world peace” but after reconsideration, finally winds up with him being a billionaire and world peace ending up in tenth place.)

 

There are stark contrasts between the wishes.  Obviously my impending disaster weighs on my mind and my great love for those who are close to me.  My wish list is self centered, my wishes revolve around me and what would make me happy.  And of course, Cindy and my children and grand children would be the benefactors of these wishes.

 

Cindy’s list is much more worldly and more gracious and generous toward all those inhabiting this forlorn planet.  But her wish list is also much more difficult to obtain, perhaps impossible. 

The conclusion I reach is that my wishes are more self-centered, but more realistically accomplished.  My wife’s are more charitable toward everyone, more generous and more worldly but incredibly difficult to accomplish.  Maybe that’s the way it is suppose to be.

 

Maybe you should ask those closes to you what they would wish for.  You might get interesting results.

 

Terry Amrhein

Author of Democracy on the Edge

Available at www.AmrheinsBooks.com

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Gun Violence is Killing America. Can we stop it?


By Terry Amrhein, Author of Democracy on the Edge

 

Mass murders are occurring in the United States with such regularity that the public is almost callous to them.  Shooting of marines in Chattenooga, Tennessee then shooting of church goers in Charleston South Carolina, followed by a shooting of a news broadcaster and her camera man near Roanoke, Virginia, followed by Colorado Spring Planned Parent Hood murders, then in San Bernardino, California.  All mass murders and the American public says and does absolutely nothing.  Just another mass murder in America!  It almost as if Americans are smug about gun violence, that it won’t happen to us; but it could by the mere toss of the dice.

              Invariability, conservative’s solution to reduce gun violence is for the law abiding citizens to carry more weapons.  Apparently, conservatives envision an America where everyone carries side arms and AR-15s at all times in order to defend themself against attack.  In San Bernardino, this would mean people would come to a Holiday Party armed to the teeth.  In reality, those favoring an armed America have not thought about it much.  Would they really support a society where the law is enforced by an armed mob, a vigilante society like the days of Wyatt Earp?  I think not.  Most Americans want a country that provides them peace and security, not having to worry about being shot.  If everyone carries arms, who’s training these people?  Can they shot accurately?  What qualifications do they have to identify the shooter from the victim?  Preservation of peace is why we have an armed and trained police force.  Everyone being armed does not promote peace and security, it aggravate them.  

            But there are thing that we can do to reduce gun violence.  Requiring background checks before anyone purchases of weapon is a good idea.  Those who are convicted felons or have a history of mental illness, angry behavior or spousal abuse should be ineligible to purchase firearms.   Would this solution eliminate all murders? No, but it would help.  The Virginia Tech shooter had been diagnoses with anxiety disorder before he killed 32 students and injured another 17. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine High School shooters, had signs of anti-social behavior and were sentenced to a juvenile diversion program after being caught for stealing tools from a parked automobile.  We have a “no fly list” that prevents suspected terrorists from flying on commerce airlines, yet we allow these same people to purchase weapons. (In fact, Republican members of Congress turned back a proposal last week to forbid those on the no fly list from buying weapons.)  That makes no sense!  Why can’t we have a no gun purchase list for terrorists, but we do not such a list?  Performing a background check requires only a few minutes.  Isn’t it worth it to help assure the purchaser is not going to shoot you someday?

            Other ideas like banning high capacity magazines are also sensible.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that a person has a right to bear firearms to defend their property and to protect the lives of themselves and their family.  A high capacity magazine is not required for either of these.  Firing 10, 12, 15 times without reloading is not required for protection but it is required if you want to commit a crime without reloading.   

            Another sensible idea is to close loop holes on gun purchases.  An example is making “straw purchase” of guns (when someone purchases a weapon which is then given to another person) illegal.  This is one of the most common means for criminals to get weapons and it should be stopped.  How can anyone object to stopping the sell of firearms to criminals?  But I know some of us will object.

            My favorite idea is to require a gun education course before you can purchase a gun.  Most states already require a gun safety course before you can obtain a hunting license.  Why shouldn’t we require a gun safety course before purchasing a firearm?  If fact the gun course for firearm purchase could also suffice for the hunting course.  Everyone would be required to get a safety course.   Guns can be dangerous to you and to others, if you don’t know to treat them safety.  We require a driver license before driving.  Why not a gun safety course be buying a gun?    

            None of these methods will stop all guns homicides in America but they will help and they are far superior to arming every American, which is what the firearm manufacturers would love to see.  

Terry AmRhein

Democracy on the Edge

Buy it at Amrheinsbooks.com

 

Thursday, November 19, 2015

What are the Issues Behind Raising the Minimum Wage?


How Would a Raise Affect You?

By Terry AmRhein, Democracy on the Edge
 


The discussion over raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour continues to be a major issue of contention among the presidential political candidates.  Republicans are united in their opposition to raising wages.  Hillary agrees with raising the minimum wage, but to a more moderate level of $12 per hours while Bernie Sanders stands behind a $15 wage rate.  What are the issues behind raising the minimum rate and what would happen if the wage rate was raised?

            The present federal minimum wage is 7.25/hr ($14,500 per year) which was last increased in 2009.  Some states do have higher minimum wage rates, some are $9.00/hr or over, but most states have a minimum wage close to the federal rate.  Had the minimum wage kept up with production, it would be $18.28 per hour by now according to the Economic Policy Institute.  Republicans claim that raising the minimum wage will result in putting people out of work; by raising workers wages the costs of products will increase and companies will be forced to layoffs workers to help maintain low prices.  The problem with this theory is that if a company had excessive employees, given the present economic conditions, employers would have already laid them off.  This is particularly true with the slow economic recovery we have experienced; there are very few excessive workers.  (Yes, some people who are not presently looking for a job may rejoin the labor market and hence increase the unemployment rate.  However, this is not the same as laying off a person who already has a job.)  To maintain profits, companies will be forced to increase prices of their products and to find new ways to increase efficiency.  The burden of dealing with higher cost of labor will be experienced in all industries alike, it will be a level play field, and the most competitive company will perform the best.  So product price increases would not be unlimited, they would be checked by competition.  This is the way it should be in a capitalist economy.     

            Increasing prices, of course, is called inflation.  Nobody likes inflation.  However, some inflation is a good thing, it shows the economy is vibrant.  The United States is presently experiencing a relatively low inflation rate of about 2%.  The reasonable rate is considered to be about 3%.  So while higher wages can be inflationary, it doesn’t appear to represent much of a hazard in the next few years.  Additionally, inflationary affects of a wage raise can be mitigated by raising wages in steps over several years.

            There are potentially many unforeseen benefits from raising workers pay.   Republican’s major objection to government is that there are too many people on the welfare, all of them freeloaders.  Increasing the minimum wage could allow people working a full time job to earn a living wage and welfare should decline.

            The effects of an increase in minimum wage will also ricochet among hire wage earners.  When the pay of lower wage earners increases, higher wage earner demand compensating wage increases.  So in effect, all workers would benefit from higher wages.

            The biggest benefit from higher wage though is on the national economy.  With increased wages, demand for goods and service will increase.  People will have more money and much of these funds is going to buy “things” like cars, boats, houses and taking vacations.  This increase in spending will simulate production of products.  The resulting profits could potentially out weigh the increase in costs caused by the wage increase.  And with increased production, employment rates would increase.  So the benefits of an increase in minimum wage are numerous and the ill effects are small or imaginary.  It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.  What is congress waiting for?    

 

By Terry AmRhein author of Democracy on the Edge available at www.Amrheinsbooks.com

Friday, September 18, 2015

Spin, Deceit and Ignorance in the Republican Candidates Debate



The Republican candidate’s debate is a hallmark in spin, deceit and just plan old ignorance placed on America’s important issues by politicians.  Here’s a few examples.

            The debaters claimed that if the Iran nuclear agreement was signed, it will result in the US giving Iran $100 billion dollars (Whow, that’s a lot of money).  This is a lie!  The US is not giving Iran anything!  The $100 billion was oil money confiscated by the international bank as part of the sanctions.  It is their money which the United Nations is returning to them as part of the agreement. 

              Some of the debaters stalwartly support a very strong show of power against the Iranian government.  They seem to think that if America was stronger and shows more strength, that Iran would cower in they boots and accept whatever deal the US dictated.  It’s incredible!  Haven’t we learned anything from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars!  We tried to force Iraq into a democratically elected government and it failed.  Do we think we can do better with Iran?  After all these years and all these lives lost, haven’t we learned that we cannot use military strength to force our well upon another nation?  A better approach is negotiations and economy sanctions to which a rogue nation has no recourse, i.e. you can’t shoot economic sanctions.  To this point, Dr Ben Carson voiced a more reasonable approach.

            Now abortions.  Carly Fiorina described the horror of how aborted babies lie on operating tables after an abortion.  This is a total misrepresentation.  The abortions can only be performed legally within the first trimester (3 months) of a pregnancy.  This is the law.  At that point a fetus is more like a baby fish than a human.  There are no arms and legs as Fiorina described.  While many may find abortions appalling, there are good reasons for a mother to abort a fetus, rape or incest being two reasons.  If a mother decides to take the horrendous step of having an abortion, it is always after serious consideration.  No one decides to have an abortion willy-nilly.  Some people though feel that they have the right to force their opinion upon others.  Apparently they have forsaken the “Golden Rule.”  But even if the mother elects to have an abortion, there is good that can come from fetus’ tissues.  The tissues can be used in stem cell research that can potentially find cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and many other illnesses.

            Donald Trump, the “Donald”, the “Great Satan” of all illegal immigrants wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico.  This is an idea worthy of Dr Seuss, “Build a wall and they will fall”.   Trump characterized illegals as rapists, murders and thieves.  This couldn’t be further from the truth. Illegal immigrants are not criminals.  By and large, they are really hard working people who will work for a pittance and do a good job.  They keep their mouth shut, work hard and stay low key largely because they live in fear of being discovered and deported.  And really, if you want to truly stop illegal immigrants, then utilize and enforce E-verify, a national data base of all immigrants that have legal work status.   

            But the “Great Wall of Trump”, has other flaws in its design.  Who the hell going to pay for this great wall?  Are we going to raise taxes?  Are we going to reduce military spending? Or is it coming from the backs of the working people who can hardly make a living now.  Oh! Oh! I have an idea, let the “Donald” pay for it.

            The praise that the “The Donald” receives that he is not beholden to anybody in this campaign, that he is paying for the entire campaign by himself, is ridiculous!  This is another way of saying that he is trying to buy the Presidency of the United States of America.  A truly democracy process might be that the nominee received 100 million donations to support his candidacy, sort of like Bernie Sanders i.e. the people supporting the candidate.

            So here we are, looking into the future.  Are we going to believe these lies, deceits and ignorant philosophy of the conservatives or are we going to wake up?  After about an hour of the debate, I went to bed.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Kim Davis' New Definition of Religious Freedom


Kim Davis’ New Definition of Religious Freedom                                                
Read more in "Democracy on the Edge" at Amrheinsbooks.com

 
Kim Davis, the Rowan County Kentucky Clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, claims the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to marry represents an infringement of her religious freedom.  Her claim is that since she is responsible for issuance of marriage licenses and since gay marriage is against her religious beliefs, the court decision is an infringement of her liberties.  Doesn’t that seem a little backwards to you?

            When the pilgrims came to the New World, they were fleeing religious persecution.  In the time of established churches, only one religion was allowed to be practiced, other religious alternatives were prohibited.  So some of those desiring a difference religious pick up there stuff, hopped on the Mayflower, and sailed to America. This is what violation of religious freedom is all about.  

            Ms Davis’ complaint is different.  What her case is actually saying by not granting licenses is that she will not allow the gay couples to participate in one of the most sacred of religious ceremonies, the act of marriage.  She is the one who is infringing upon others religious freedoms!  Somehow, conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, who have appeared in support of Ms Davis, have twisted the concept on religious freedom on its head.  They have successfully persuaded some people that it is OK for an individual to not perform their sworn duties and responsibilities i.e.  to uphold and dutifully fulfill the law of the country so help me God, because they don’t agree with it.  This is an entire new definition of “religious freedom”.  This attitude leads to anarchy.  Don’t fall for it, folks!  Don’t let the religious right turn religion freedom up side down.

Read more in "Democracy on the Edge" at Amrheinsbooks.com

Saturday, August 8, 2015

The Iranian Uranium Enrichment Agreement in a Nutshell


 

By Terry A. AmRhein, Author of Democracy on the Edge

 

The United States and the rest of the world have been given an opportunity to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.  But there are extreme risks involved in the agreement.  What are these risks?  Should the US take the risk?

            In 2008, intelligence discovered that Iran had built a Uranium enrichment facility.  The US started negotiating with Iran to limit production of enriched uranium1) but with little progress.  In 2010, when the world became aware that Iran had uranium enrichment facilities, action began to happen.  The five members of the United Nations Security Council, (US, Great Britain, France, China, Russia) plus Germany agreed to impose strong sanctions on Iran and these sanctions held tight.  In addition, the UN imposed sanctions on Iran’s banking and finance system preventing payment for oil revenues from reaching Iranian banks.  By 2013 Iran had significant stock piles of enriched Uranium that could be turned into a bomb with further enrichment.  The sanctions though were having their effect and Iran attitude became more earnest.

            After 20 months of negotiating, the UN Security Council members plus Germany reached an agreement with Iran.  Here’s what the agreement entails:

 

1) Iran will reduce its stockpile of low enriched Uranium to 98% of it present level (i.e to 660 LB or 300 Kilograms), half of what it would take to make a bomb and keep it at this level for 15 years. 

2) For the next 15 years, Iran will keep its number of high speed centrifuges to a low enough number so that it would take one year to enrich enough uranium to produce a bomb.2) 

3) For the next 15 years, Iran must not enrich uranium above 3.67% U235, the concentration required for a commercial nuclear reactor.

4) During this time, Iran will permit detailed inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and by the international community.  Up to a 24 day prior notice of the inspection is required.

5) Iran will convert its heavy water nuclear reactor3) designed to make plutonium, into a reactor that cannot make plutonium.4)

           

            Here’s what Iran gets in return:

1) Iran will have a small portion of the international sanction lifted immediately but most of the sanctions will stay in affect until Iran completes implementation of the agreement.  This is scheduled to take about 6 months.

2) Following complete implementation, the sanctions will be lifted.  Iran will then have access to about $100 billion of the oil money that has been held in escrow by international banks.

3) After 5 years, the embargo on Iran’s receiving conventional weapons will be lifted.  After 8 years, the embargo on receiving missile technology will also be lifted.

 

Any breach of the agreement would cause the UN sanctions to “snap back” into place.

 

            The discussion of the agreement has been strenuous and varied.  Some say this could be a remarkably good deal.  Others, particularly Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declare this is a sure way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  Senator John McCain said that this will lead to an Iranian “shopping spree” because after 5 years, Iran will have access to $100 billion to buy weapons and after 8 years will access to missile technology.

 

            Some believe that if Iran does break the agreement, the sanctions will not “snap back” into place as the Obama administration claims.  They point out that it took significant effort to establish the sanctions in the first place and the chance of re-establishing them is not likely.   Also the UN Security Council and Germany has already agreed with the deal, somewhat upstaging the US.  If the US now fails to pass the deal, the US will look like the rogue nation. Other point out that Iran will have up to 24 days to “sanitize” any inspection site before any inspection occurs and thus could hide their bomb enrichment process.

 

            During the Republican Presidential Nominee debate on August 6, it was apparent that the Republican candidates for president, are unanimously against Iran Nuclear deal.  Rand Paul expressed the opinion that if the US negotiated from a position of power, we could have gotten a better deal.  (Although he doesn’t explain what a “position of power” is.  Usually in a negotiation, if one party starts out by saying “If you don’t do what I want, I’m going to hit you in the head”, the negotiations don’t get too far.)  On Friday August 10, Senators Chuck Schumer of New York declared that he would not support the nuclear deal.  Chuck Schumer is the likely Senate major leader after Harry Reid leaves next year and represents a symbol for other democrats to likewise vote against the deal.  To scuttle the deal, however, opponents have two high hurdles. They will need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster by supporters of the accord. If the opponents get that, the president will veto the resolution. The opponents would then have to get of two-thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto.      

 

            During this process, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have stressed that

1) If the deal is turned down, that Iran will almost certainly continuing enriching Uranium and obtain a bomb within a relative short time.

2) That the inspections will be complete and though and if Iran is enriching beyond 3.67% or the number of centrifuges is exceeded or other terms of the agreement are broken, that sanctions and any other action (e.g. bombing) that is available now, can be implemented at the time the agreement is broken.        

3) That this agreement is only an interim agreement.  That during the next years, US will attempt to negotiate further with Iran to persuade them to give up their desire to make nuclear bombs.  Obama indicates that this represents a opportunity to establish better relationships with Iran. (Remember during the late 1970s, when the Shah of Iran was in power, relationship with Iran was more congenial)

           

So this is the Iranian Uranium Enrichment agreement in a nut shell, hopefully explained simply enough that you don’t have to be a physicist to understand it.  This agreement affects every American.  You should have an opinion about it because it will affect you, your children and your grandchildren.  Then tell your US Senator what you think.

Democracy on the Edge
 

 

Footnotes:

1)  Most of Uranium is 238 containing 92 protons and 147 neutrons in its nucleus.  Uranium 238, called U238, however will not fission and therefore cannot be used as a bomb.  To have a bomb you need U235, 92 protons and only 143 neutrons.  To refine U235 from normal Uranium you must separate the two “isotopes”.  The Uranium containing higher quantities of U235 is called “enriched Uranium”.

2) High speed centrifuges spend extremely fast.  Since the uranium isotopes have different weights, they tend to concentrate is different regions in the centrifuge.  By judiciously gathering the right isotope from the right region you can slowly concentrate the isotope that you want, i.e. you can concentrate the U235.  Uranium must be over 90% U235 to make a bomb.

3) Normal water, H2O, contain two hydrogen atoms.  Each hydrogen atom contains only one proton with an electron circling around it.  But some hydrogen atoms can have one proton and one neutron in its nucleus with an electron circling around.  This hydrogen atom has a special  name called deuterium and since it has two particles in the nucleus, the water it makes is called “heavy water”.

4)  You make plutonium Pu239 from U238 by having the uraniumU238 absorb a neutron and through a nuclear reaction U238 becomes Pu239.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015


The Supreme Court has another Chance to Destroy Obamacare

How would it affect you?

          The Supreme Court has yet another chance at destroying the Affordable Care Act.  The situation is this.  A large part of Obamacare is to make health care affordable for Americans.  The plan, therefore, subsidizes premiums paid by families for their health insurance.  For example, in 2014 a family of four making $35,775 per year would not pay more than $1430 per year ($119 per month) for a silver plan.  These subsides apply to annual incomes reaching up to about $100,000 a year.  The subsides are paid for by

       -          a much larger pool of participating and mostly healthy individuals
 
      -          more frequent medical checkups to keep people healthier

      -          additional taxes on those making over $200,000 per year and

      -          taxes on medical devices and health care insurance companies, on expensive “Cadillac”health care plans and on tanning salons. 

            The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) was originally written to have each state set up it own health insurance exchange.  Citizens go on-line to health care exchanges and select which plan they want, from the most economical bronze plan to the most expensive platinum plan.  Along the way though, 34 states opted not to set up their own plan, some because setting up the system was too onerous and others because they just opposed Obamacare.  The federal government then established a system where people without state plans could select an insurance plan through the federal government site, www.healthcare.gov. 

            The only problem is the exact wording of the Affordable Care Act.  The Act states that subsidies will be provided to eligible people who purchase insurance through “exchanges established by the states”.  In King v Burwell (Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services) King argues that anyone who obtained health insurance through a federal exchange is NOT eligible for subsidies because they’re not “established by the state.”  Even though Obamacare clearly intended that subsidies could be provided through either a state or a federal exchange, the exact wording of the act does NOT say “or the federal government.” 

            All this turmoil and uncertainty results from conservative zealots that loath Obamacare. So if the Supreme Court decides that the federal government cannot provide subsides, here is what could happen.

1)  Five million people signed up for Obamacare from federal exchanges in 2014.  Of those, 87% or about 4.4 million people, received subsidies.  Without those subsidies, many of the lower income and healthy, generally younger people may opt out1). The numbers get worse though.  In 2015, the second year of enrollment, the estimated number of Obamacare participates is about 11.4 million and, according to E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, 2) about 8 million lower income and younger people could opt out and be without health insurance.

 2) Most of those who drop health insurance are from the 34 non-participating states.  These are predominately Republican states.

3) With the younger, relatively healthy people not participating, the majority of the participants would be in poor health and require more medical treatment.  However, without insurance, hospital and doctor payments would drop and medical fees would have to increase in order to compensate.  An economic forecast by the RAND Corporation projects that medical fees would increase by 47%, while enrollment in individual health care insurance market would decline by 70%3).  This too would occur predominately in Red states which did not develop exchanges.

4) People without insurance are reluctant to go to the doctor.  The result is many preventable diseases (e.g. asthma, heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer) will not be detected until late in the disease development when the prognosis is not good and the cost of treatment is higher.  Before Obamacare, the American Journal of Public Health reported that about 44,800 people were dying unnecessary each year due to lack of insurance 4).  In addition, lack of pre-natal care results in higher infant mortality rates.  The National Vital Statistics Bureau reports that about 25,000 infant deaths result each year from inadequate prenatal care 5).  And again, the increase in death and disease will predominately occur in Republican states.

5) The expanded Medicaid program that provides healthcare for those earning less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, (about $33,000 for a family of four in 2014) would continue for those 25 states that opted to participate in the program.  The other 25 states refused to participate in expanded Medicaid, even though the federal government will pay almost all of the costs.  The 25 states not participating in the expanded Medicaid is, you guessed it, mostly Republican states. 

So the end result of a Supreme Court decision to uphold King’s complaint is that part of the nation would be receiving huge Federal subsides for health insurance and the remaining states could receive near nothing.  Secretary Burwell told Congress that the administration knows of no legal action it could take to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that will be caused by an adverse decision.”6)

In closing this article, I quote Ted Cruz’s statement to the International Union of Firefighter on Tuesday March 10 in Dallas, Texas:

“Five years ago reasonable minds could have differed on whether this was a good idea, but today, seeing millions of American who’ve lost their jobs, who’ve been forced into part time work, who’ve lost their health care, who’ve lost their doctor — it is the essence of reasonableness, it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge this thing isn’t working. We need to repeal it and start over.”

I think it is the essence of reasonableness for the states to have joined Obamacare.  Thank goodness Cruz doesn’t work for NASA.

1) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies – what you need to know,” by Laura Lorenzetti, March 3, 2015.

2) The Week, “Obamacare’s looming legal showdown’, March 56, 2015

3) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies –

4) Wilper, Andrew P.; Woolhandler, Steffie; Lasser, Karen E.; McCormick, Danny; Bor, David H.; Himmelstein, David U. (December 2009). "Health insurance and mortality in US adults." American Journal of Public Health 99 (12): 2289–2295. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685. PMC 2775760. PMID 19762659.

5) National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 59, No. 6, June 29, 2011

6) www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0304/supreme-court-could-obamacare-ruling-destroy-health-insurance-for-millions             

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The President's Immigration Action


What did Obama’s memorandum on immigration actually do?  The memorandum provided additional resources to help law enforcement stem the flow of illegal crossings into the U. S. and placed more emphasize on finding and deporting criminals.  However the most contentious part of the action is that the president’s plan would

-          offers undocumented immigrants, who are parents of U. S. citizens or permanent residents who have been in the U. S. more that 5 years, the opportunity to remain temporarily within the U. S. without fear of deportation and

-          allows those individuals that were brought to the U. S. illegally as children under the age of 16, to avoid  deportation (which is a continuation of Obama 2012 policy).  

In order to qualify for this temporary stay from deportation, the applicant must register, pass a criminal background check and pay their back taxes.  Also the memorandum does not grant citizenship or permanent status but they can seek citizenship through other procedures. This action will permit approximately 4 to 5 million (no one knows for sure) illegal immigrants to remain in the U. S.  

Monday, April 20, 2015



Now there is something we can do about “Citizens United”

           

The Supreme Court’s decision on “Citizens United” gave corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political commercials and advertisements.  The court’s reasoning was that political commercials are a form of free speech and free speech is protected by the constitution.  But the constitution is referring to “free speech” for citizens.  Corporations and unions are not citizens.  They are quite different from citizens.  Corporation’s main goal is to make profit and union’s goal is to increase the pay and benefits for their members.  They are not subject to the same moral characteristics as people.  Furthermore, corporations and unions are not subject to the same laws as people.  Corporations are immune from judicial prosecution, there has never been a corporation thrown in jail!  So if corporations and unions are not subject to the same laws as people, why should they have the same rights?

            Every American citizen, regardless of political affiliation, race, gender or age should be appalled by this situation.  It reduces the authority the voters have to determine who their state and federal representatives will be and increases the control that businesses and unions have in making that decision.

            Now there is something you can do!  Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream in Vermont, has started a grass-roots campaign to put the election power back in the hands of the American people and to repeal the “Citizen United” decision.  This idea is GREAT!  Buy a rubber stamp and stamp every piece of paper currency with a slogan urging congress to repeal Citizens United.  Slogans like, “STAMP MONEY OUT OF POLITICS”, “NOT TO BE USED FOR BRIBING POLITICIANS” and other great stamps are available.  This is entirely legal.  Join the thousands of people who have already joined the “Stamp Stampede”.  Go to www.stampstampede.org to get your stamp.  Just imagine what members of congress would think if every piece of currency were stamped.  Get your power back.  You decide who is going to represent you.

 


 






 
 
 
 

 

Thursday, April 9, 2015

A Brief Trip to China


 

 

Shanghai
What is China really like?  I just returned from an 8 day trip to China.  In a trip sponsored by the Vermont Council on World Affairs, we visited  Beijing, Suzhoe (pronounced su joe), Shanghai and Hangzhou (hang joe).  While an eight day trip makes me just a tiny bit more knowledgeable than most Americans, it does provide at least a first impression of the country. 

            China by any analysis is a booming, growing country.  In the big cities along the east coast where we visited, construction projects are everywhere.  In fact, some people claim that the new national bird of China is the “boom crane”.  It is not unusual to see four, five, six cranes busily working on many construction sites in these growing cities and Shanghai must be considered one of the most modern cities in the world. 



Construction, the Chinese "national
bird", the boom crane
            It’s also easy to see that the people in China are prospering. The citizens in the cities are dressing in nice business attire and are usually on the go.  People in the parks and gardens are dressed in clean, casual attire and are strolling more casually but still appear to be on a mission.  I saw only a few who were obviously poor.  A few disabled sitting on the side walks begging for money; but able-bodied pan-handlers begging for money, I saw none of these.  There are, however, the ubiquitous street vendors, who we impolitely called “mosquitoes” because they bug you whenever you get on or off the tour bus. These persistent sales people will offer you the opportunity to buy a “genuine” Rolex watch for five US dollars or other street trinkets that you just can’t live without and they don’t go away with a simple “no thank you”.  Also I saw many people sweeping the streets with brooms.  In fact, I didn’t see street litter anywhere in China, not even in Beijing or Shanghai that are homes for millions of people. The government employs thousands of people as municipal workers to keep the streets clean and that seems to work. 
                      
Keeping the city clean
          It’s also obvious that the Chinese people are fond of Americans and Europeans (I don’t think they can tell us apart).  If you ask a Chinese person on the street to take their picture, he/she could not be more willing.  Ask a Chinese woman to take a picture with her adorable baby and she’s eager to do it.  Ask them to take your picture and they gladly do it.  In fact, they want to be in the picture too! 

           Another curious phenomenon is that the US dollar is accepted for currency everywhere, not British pound or German deutsche mark that I could see, but US dollar, yes!  Six yuan per dollar is accepted everywhere.  I soon became proficient at dividing the price in yuan by six.         


Tienanman Square and Entrance
to the Forbidden City

            Of course, China is thought of as a communist country and most of us were brought up to believe that communism is bad, removing all liberty from the people, and ruling the people with a heavy handed dictatorial power.  Well if the Chinese people are unhappy they certainly don’t show it.  In fact, China is not strictly communist.  There are millions of small businesses owned and operated by private people. China is a giant at making small businesses thrive.  In fact, I asked the tour guide, “In China, who owns the electric company?”  “The government” he replied.  Then I ask him, “Who owns the office buildings that are being constructed?”  “Well the development company owns that, and the construction company builds it for the development company.”  That sounds capitalistic to me.  But many of the big businesses are controlled by the government, all the provincial government employees work for the government, all the electronic, telecommunications and power companies are government controlled and some of the manufacturing and industrial companies are owned and operated by the government   However, some foreign manufacturing companies are owned by the foreign company.  For example car parts made for Ford and General Motors are owned by Ford and General Motors and employee’s paychecks probably have Ford and GM at the top.   These businesses operate in China according to Chinese regulations and must pay the Chinese government for the opportunity to have factories in China.  The point being, China in not a strictly communist country where all the means of production are owned by the government (or in communist lingo, all the means of production are owned by the “people”).  China is a blend, a mish mash, of government operations and private operations.


High speed rail

            There’s no doubt though that China is a centrally controlled country, how else could birth rates be controlled to only one child per family.  I think that this is a more important fact then it’s supposedly communist form of government.  China deals with issues, whether political, economic, social, international, by centralized government control.  Yes, China is a single party system. All members of the government are communists, but it is the central control that’s the crucial factor, not that it is nominally communist.  It may be that a central authority works well in a country like China where people are more society oriented.  Perhaps it is centuries of people living in close proximity that allows them to work more closely as a society, as a community.  Or perhaps it is the approximately 40 centuries of being ruled by an emperor who was the ultimate authority.  China was ruled by an emperor from 2000 years before Christ until 1912, when the emperor was overturned and a more democrat government called the Republic of China was established by Chiang Kai-Shek.    Chiang lasted until 1949 when Mao Zedong forced Chiang into Formosa (present day Taiwan) who formed the Republic of China (ROC) and Mao formed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) over the rest of China.
431 Km/h or 270 mph on the High
Speed Rail line

            The centralized government has several distinguishing features.  It allows the government to direct policy swiftly and efficiently.  This has resulted in phenomenal economic growth in China.  Over the last 30 years, China has experienced a GDP growth rate hovering around 10% per year.  China’s GDP, after adjusted for inflation and cost of living differences, is approaching that of the US’s ($16.7 trillion in 2013) if it hasn’t already passed it.  So China will become the largest economy in the world.  But really, so what?  China has 1.35 billion people, the US has 325 million (.325 billion).  So China has over four times as many people as we have.  You wouldn’t expect a small country like Switzerland to out produce a big country like the United States.  Likewise you wouldn’t expect the US to out produce China.  Also remember that China after World War II was a third world country.  After the war, China reformed itself and has been catching up with other countries ever since.  Starting from a lower level of productivity it’s easier to have high rates of growth.  As time passes, however, growth becomes more difficult, the low hanging fruit of progress has already been picked. China’s rate of growth will slow as the economy catches up.  

Typical housing complex
          Furthermore, even if China’s economy is bigger that ours, Chinese citizens are not better off.  Using the GDP per person as an estimator for the citizen’s wealth, China’s GDP per person is about $12,000 per year in 2013 after inflation adjustments while the US has about $53,000.  So the US population, in general, enjoys a higher standard of living.  While we were in China, we were graciously allowed to have lunch in what I believe to be a typical Chinese apartment.  The food was good and plentiful.  The apartment consisted to three rooms, each about 12 to 15 feet wide and 12 to 15 feet long, aligned in a row.  The first room was the dinning room, the second the bedroom and the back room was the kitchen.  The bathroom was provided for by a public bath down the block.  In spite of the fact that the hostess was very hospitable and kind, the dwelling was modest by any description.    

China per capita GDP compared
with other countries, World Bank Dec 2014
          Another feature of a central government, as you may guess, the powerful will do everything they can to stay in power and to empower and enrich themselves through graft, criminality and nepotism.  The people are, of course, aware of these actions and, according to Tiger Head Snakes Tails by Jonathan Fenby, previous editor of South China Morning Post, there are about 180,000 protests a year on such matters.  Occasionally public officials are arrested and jailed by the government.  But I believe most of these criminal actions go unpunished.  Relatives of Xi Jinping, the new Chinese leader, has assets of $376 million while outgoing Premier, Wen Jiabao, has asset of $2.7 billion.  Forty per cent of the private wealth in China is held by 1 per cent of the population.1)  Unfortunately, and surprisingly, in the United States in 2010, wealth was also distributed almost as un-equally, 1% of the population own 35.4% of the wealth.2) Distribution of wealth is important because it portrays how the common citizen partakes in the economic success of a nation and how widely the wealth is spread throughout the country.  For right now, the US is the leader of the financial and democratic world, but based on distribution of wealth statistic, this may not always be the case.   

 

1) “Tiger Head Snake Tails, China Today, How it got There and Where it is Heading, ”, by Jonathan Fenby, The Overlook Press, Copyright, 2012

 

2) “Who Rules America? Wealth, Income and Power,” G. William Dornhoff, Socialogy Dept, University of California, Santa Cruz