Merit and Diversity

Merit and Diversity

            Robert A. Levine

Today’s world is increasingly complex and competitive, and can be expected to remain so. National economies are under constant pressure to provide more and better products, both for export and internal consumption. For America to thrive in this challenging landscape, we must be certain that the best and the brightest among us are given the opportunity to fully maximize their intellectual potential to advance science, industry and medicine. This means that the top sources of higher education, both in undergraduate and graduate programs, must be available to the most intelligent strata of young Americans to help them fully grow their knowledge base and skills. Having finished with these programs, they should be welcomed into prime academic positions to teach new students and carry on novel research in all fields, and industrial companies to develop new products.

Given the nation’s history of slavery and discrimination directed against Blacks and Latinos, the above schema presents some ethical questions. Though not a homogeneous group, our Asian population appears to have few problems in progressing without special governmental, legal or institutional help. Indeed, they are quite successful academically as well as in the fields of endeavor they choose. In fact, because they are so proficient academically, many of the elite schools appear to manifest bias against them, restricting the number of Asian students they admit, even though their qualifications surpass many non-Asians who gain entry. Some meritorious white students are also denied entry to elite schools in the name of diversity- admittance of Black and Latino students whose qualifications are not as strong as those Asians and whites who are rejected. Many institutions are no longer requiring SATs or ACTs to help decide on admissions, as the results would tend to work against minority applicants and perhaps limit diversity. This is also a strike against merit based admissions.

There is no question that Blacks and Latinos have suffered from centuries of bias and discrimination from the dominant white population in America. Their education has been inferior, their housing and health care sub-par, their job opportunities and wealth accumulation wanting in comparison to whites. With bias undoubtedly playing a role, there are higher rates of alcoholism, drug addiction and gun violence among these minority populations. An important factor however, in these epidemics of violence and addiction is parental neglect and youngsters who are raised in families with absent fathers. Some of these children have neither father nor mother present and are raised by grandmothers or other family members.

Early interactions between parents and infants are essential in children’s learning, and those lacking in early parental instruction and nurturing start school already behind their classmates. Unfortunately, most of these deprived children never seem to catch up to their peers, many of them dropping out and not graduating from high school.

To help children who begin school behind, Head Start and pre-Head Start programs were initiated, to introduce these children to a learning environment and to some degree of discipline. Some schools have also made arrangements for tutoring at all levels and in different subjects for those students who are not learning at grade level or above. The various programs and tutoring has been helpful in many cases and these children may be performing adequately to even exceptionally well. It is not only minority students who are aided by these special programs, but poor white students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, the students who seem to do best are those who have parental involvement, with parents reinforcing the value of any academic achievements.

The support and special programs are a necessity to help minority and impoverished white students maximize their academic potential and contribute to society. But admission to elite colleges should be on the basis of merit and not to promote diversity alone. Those who are not the best, can go to lower level colleges, community colleges, or even into apprenticeship programs. And those students in college who are not exceptional academically should not be admitted to elite graduate schools just to promote diversity.

The same holds true for important or intellectually demanding jobs. These should also be offered on the basis of merit and not just for a diverse workplace. Eventually, with the various special programs and tutoring in the public schools, more diverse classes will be admitted to elite colleges on the basis of merit. Likewise, graduate schools and jobs will also be apportioned on the basis of merit and will reflect diversity. But merit should be the decisive factor.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Merit and Diversity

Merit and Diversity

            Robert A. Levine

Today’s world is increasingly complex and competitive, and can be expected to remain so. National economies are under constant pressure to provide more and better products, both for export and internal consumption. For America to thrive in this challenging landscape, we must be certain that the best and the brightest among us are given the opportunity to fully maximize their intellectual potential to advance science, industry and medicine. This means that the top sources of higher education, both in undergraduate and graduate programs, must be available to the most intelligent strata of young Americans to help them fully grow their knowledge base and skills. Having finished with these programs, they should be welcomed into prime academic positions to teach new students and carry on novel research in all fields, and industrial companies to develop new products.

Given the nation’s history of slavery and discrimination directed against Blacks and Latinos, the above schema presents some ethical questions. Though not a homogeneous group, our Asian population appears to have few problems in progressing without special governmental, legal or institutional help. Indeed, they are quite successful academically as well as in the fields of endeavor they choose. In fact, because they are so proficient academically, many of the elite schools appear to manifest bias against them, restricting the number of Asian students they admit, even though their qualifications surpass many non-Asians who gain entry. Some meritorious white students are also denied entry to elite schools in the name of diversity- admittance of Black and Latino students whose qualifications are not as strong as those Asians and whites who are rejected. Many institutions are no longer requiring SATs or ACTs to help decide on admissions, as the results would tend to work against minority applicants and perhaps limit diversity. This is also a strike against merit based admissions.

There is no question that Blacks and Latinos have suffered from centuries of bias and discrimination from the dominant white population in America. Their education has been inferior, their housing and health care sub-par, their job opportunities and wealth accumulation wanting in comparison to whites. With bias undoubtedly playing a role, there are higher rates of alcoholism, drug addiction and gun violence among these minority populations. An important factor however, in these epidemics of violence and addiction is parental neglect and youngsters who are raised in families with absent fathers. Some of these children have neither father nor mother present and are raised by grandmothers or other family members.

Early interactions between parents and infants are essential in children’s learning, and those lacking in early parental instruction and nurturing start school already behind their classmates. Unfortunately, most of these deprived children never seem to catch up to their peers, many of them dropping out and not graduating from high school.

To help children who begin school behind, Head Start and pre-Head Start programs were initiated, to introduce these children to a learning environment and to some degree of discipline. Some schools have also made arrangements for tutoring at all levels and in different subjects for those students who are not learning at grade level or above. The various programs and tutoring has been helpful in many cases and these children may be performing adequately to even exceptionally well. It is not only minority students who are aided by these special programs, but poor white students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, the students who seem to do best are those who have parental involvement, with parents reinforcing the value of any academic achievements.

The support and special programs are a necessity to help minority and impoverished white students maximize their academic potential and contribute to society. But admission to elite colleges should be on the basis of merit and not to promote diversity alone. Those who are not the best, can go to lower level colleges, community colleges, or even into apprenticeship programs. And those students in college who are not exceptional academically should not be admitted to elite graduate schools just to promote diversity.

The same holds true for important or intellectually demanding jobs. These should also be offered on the basis of merit and not just for a diverse workplace. Eventually, with the various special programs and tutoring in the public schools, more diverse classes will be admitted to elite colleges on the basis of merit. Likewise, graduate schools and jobs will also be apportioned on the basis of merit and will reflect diversity. But merit should be the decisive factor.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

What's Going On With

What’s Going On With Putin?

                        Robert A. Levine, M.D.  March 8, 2023

I am a retired neurologist. Last week, I watched a five to ten second video of President Putin’s meeting with Lukashenko in a villa outside of Moscow online. Instead of being seated behind a table which would hide his lower body, he was in a chair with nothing blocking his legs. During the period he was visible, constant movements of both legs were noted in an asynchronous fashion. One might call these “restless legs,” but medically they looked like a syndrome called akathisia or psychomotor restlessness. Minimal movements of the hands and fingers were also noted.

Akathisia is most often caused by an adverse reaction to drugs, particularly with anti-psychotic medications. However, other drugs can also be responsible less often, including antidepressants such as tricyclic medications (nortriptyline and amitriptyline) and (SSRIs) selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro). In addition, calcium channel blockers (Cardizem), which are utilized for high blood pressure can rarely produce akathisia. Even if Putin is taking anti-psychotic medications, it does not indicate he is psychotic as some physicians may also prescribe these drugs for anxiety. And he may be taking anti-depressants or calcium channel blockers and having an adverse response, though akathisia is seen uncommonly with these compounds.

The National Library of Medicine of the NIH also mentions that akathisia can be seen with anti-emetic drugs (Compazine), drugs for vertigo, sedatives used for anesthesia, and abuse of cocaine.

Other considerations besides akathisia for Putin’s leg movements include the possibility of a tardive dyskinesia which can also occur with the above medications, or when they are withdrawn. However, movements of the arms and facial tics are present more often with tardive dyskinesia than mainly leg movements.

Less likely possibilities are that Putin has a neurodegenerative disorder or a movement disorder such as Parkinson’s or one of its associated syndromes. There are medications that can treat akathisia, but Putin may not even be aware of his problem or may not want any additional medications. And the treatments are not always successful. Those used include mirtazapine, beta blockers and anticholinergic compounds. The mechanism in the brain that produces akathisia is uncertain, but may have to do with dopamine or other neurotransmitters, and an imbalance between neurotransmitter systems, such as dopamine and acetylcholine. A blockage of dopamine type 2 receptors is also a consideration. There are no specific laboratory tests that can help with the diagnosis of akathisia. It is merely a diagnosis made by observation.

Patients with akathisia usually feel restless with a need to move. They may also feel subjectively uncomfortable. The akathisia may be short lasting or may persist indefinitely, even after the precipitating medications are withdrawn and treatment is initiated. We don’t know how long Putin has had these movements as there have not been videos of him with his legs exposed. Usually, he has been seen sitting at a long table, with his advisors or guests at the far end. There have been suggestions that this was a manifestation of paranoia, as Putin was afraid of catching Covid or of being assassinated. But perhaps this was related to his akathisia.

As far as we know, Putin is cognitively intact, but it would be helpful if his physicians told the world what is going on since he is the leader of a powerful nation with nuclear weapons. However, Putin wants to project an aura of strength and determination to the world and certainly does not want it known that he has an illness of any sort or is taking medications on a regular basis. In an autocratic state, the leader controls the release of all information, particularly those of a personal nature.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon or Barnes and Noble

What's Going On With

What’s Going On With Putin?

                        Robert A. Levine, M.D.  March 8, 2023

I am a retired neurologist. Last week, I watched a five to ten second video of President Putin’s meeting with Lukashenko in a villa outside of Moscow online. Instead of being seated behind a table which would hide his lower body, he was in a chair with nothing blocking his legs. During the period he was visible, constant movements of both legs were noted in an asynchronous fashion. One might call these “restless legs,” but medically they looked like a syndrome called akathisia or psychomotor restlessness. Minimal movements of the hands and fingers were also noted.

Akathisia is most often caused by an adverse reaction to drugs, particularly with anti-psychotic medications. However, other drugs can also be responsible less often, including antidepressants such as tricyclic medications (nortriptyline and amitriptyline) and (SSRIs) selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro). In addition, calcium channel blockers (Cardizem), which are utilized for high blood pressure can rarely produce akathisia. Even if Putin is taking anti-psychotic medications, it does not indicate he is psychotic as some physicians may also prescribe these drugs for anxiety. And he may be taking anti-depressants or calcium channel blockers and having an adverse response, though akathisia is seen uncommonly with these compounds.

The National Library of Medicine of the NIH also mentions that akathisia can be seen with anti-emetic drugs (Compazine), drugs for vertigo, sedatives used for anesthesia, and abuse of cocaine.

Other considerations besides akathisia for Putin’s leg movements include the possibility of a tardive dyskinesia which can also occur with the above medications, or when they are withdrawn. However, movements of the arms and facial tics are present more often with tardive dyskinesia than mainly leg movements.

Less likely possibilities are that Putin has a neurodegenerative disorder or a movement disorder such as Parkinson’s or one of its associated syndromes. There are medications that can treat akathisia, but Putin may not even be aware of his problem or may not want any additional medications. And the treatments are not always successful. Those used include mirtazapine, beta blockers and anticholinergic compounds. The mechanism in the brain that produces akathisia is uncertain, but may have to do with dopamine or other neurotransmitters, and an imbalance between neurotransmitter systems, such as dopamine and acetylcholine. A blockage of dopamine type 2 receptors is also a consideration. There are no specific laboratory tests that can help with the diagnosis of akathisia. It is merely a diagnosis made by observation.

Patients with akathisia usually feel restless with a need to move. They may also feel subjectively uncomfortable. The akathisia may be short lasting or may persist indefinitely, even after the precipitating medications are withdrawn and treatment is initiated. We don’t know how long Putin has had these movements as there have not been videos of him with his legs exposed. Usually, he has been seen sitting at a long table, with his advisors or guests at the far end. There have been suggestions that this was a manifestation of paranoia, as Putin was afraid of catching Covid or of being assassinated. But perhaps this was related to his akathisia.

As far as we know, Putin is cognitively intact, but it would be helpful if his physicians told the world what is going on since he is the leader of a powerful nation with nuclear weapons. However, Putin wants to project an aura of strength and determination to the world and certainly does not want it known that he has an illness of any sort or is taking medications on a regular basis. In an autocratic state, the leader controls the release of all information, particularly those of a personal nature.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon or Barnes and Noble

Saving Social Programs

Saving Social Programs      

                        Robert A. Levine    2-21-23

Social Security and Medicare are destined to go broke in the future if something is not done to shore up their finances. The problem is that America is growing older and there are not enough young workers to support the programs for the aged. Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida suggested reviewing all government programs every five years to make adjustments if they were not financially viable. This produced a general uproar among the public and politicians from both parties as many Americans are dependent on Social Security and Medicare as they grow older and the programs have been seen in the past as politically untouchable.

There are a number of ways these programs could be protected from financial problems, but there are powerful political groups opposed to the various solutions. The simplest way to handle the deficits in these programs would be to raise taxes on the wealthy and devote the increased funding to Social Security and Medicare. Currently, workers pay a 12.4 percent FICA tax on their wages for Social Security benefits, the contributions split equally between the worker and the employer. However, the amount of wages taxed are capped, currently at slightly over $160,000. If the cap were raised significantly, say to $500,000 or more, Social Security would be placed on a firmer financial footing for a long period. But obviously, high earners are opposed to this measure.

Another way to help these programs financially would be to increase the worker base that supports these programs. That means more workers. With America’s birth rates going down, there are two ways to increase workers. One would be to raise the number of immigrants allowed into the country to fill jobs, with the unemployment rate hovering at low levels and jobs going unfilled. However, many Americans do not want more immigrants, making this solution a political problem. Another way to handle this would be to raise the retirement age, perhaps to seventy, to have more workers on the job longer. With life expectancies increasing (aside from the last few years), people should be working longer unless they are sick or disabled. It has been shown that working longer lowers the rate of dementia in people. Even so, there would certainly be an outcry among workers if their retirement age was suddenly raised, which means it would not be politically viable. Cutting benefits to retirees is also a solution that would not gain political support.

FICA taxes of 2.9 percent to support Medicare could also be increased and the cap raised to bring in more funding. However, America needs a more efficient system to provide health care to its citizens than Medicare, Medicaid and insurance through employers and bought privately. American health care is far more expensive than that of any other advanced nation, with no significant difference in outcomes. Americans pay more for necessary medications than any other advanced nation because no negotiations are allowed with pharmaceutical companies. With Medicare, Medicaid, and multiple insurance companies financing health care, all with different rules and benefits, providers find the system an administrative nightmare, increasing time and costs in caring for each patient.

A health care system is needed with uniform rules and benefits, like a Medicare for all, that could be supplemented by additional insurance. Medicare should also be permitted to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, with the understanding that drug prices for America would match those of the lowest price given by the companies to any other advanced nation. More efficient care would mean less expensive care and better care for all patients. However, government action to improve health care and Social Security are unlikely given the polarization between the two political parties. In all probability, health care and Social Security funding will be handled with some stop gap measure, rather than a permanent fix.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Saving Social Programs

Saving Social Programs      

                        Robert A. Levine    2-21-23

Social Security and Medicare are destined to go broke in the future if something is not done to shore up their finances. The problem is that America is growing older and there are not enough young workers to support the programs for the aged. Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida suggested reviewing all government programs every five years to make adjustments if they were not financially viable. This produced a general uproar among the public and politicians from both parties as many Americans are dependent on Social Security and Medicare as they grow older and the programs have been seen in the past as politically untouchable.

There are a number of ways these programs could be protected from financial problems, but there are powerful political groups opposed to the various solutions. The simplest way to handle the deficits in these programs would be to raise taxes on the wealthy and devote the increased funding to Social Security and Medicare. Currently, workers pay a 12.4 percent FICA tax on their wages for Social Security benefits, the contributions split equally between the worker and the employer. However, the amount of wages taxed are capped, currently at slightly over $160,000. If the cap were raised significantly, say to $500,000 or more, Social Security would be placed on a firmer financial footing for a long period. But obviously, high earners are opposed to this measure.

Another way to help these programs financially would be to increase the worker base that supports these programs. That means more workers. With America’s birth rates going down, there are two ways to increase workers. One would be to raise the number of immigrants allowed into the country to fill jobs, with the unemployment rate hovering at low levels and jobs going unfilled. However, many Americans do not want more immigrants, making this solution a political problem. Another way to handle this would be to raise the retirement age, perhaps to seventy, to have more workers on the job longer. With life expectancies increasing (aside from the last few years), people should be working longer unless they are sick or disabled. It has been shown that working longer lowers the rate of dementia in people. Even so, there would certainly be an outcry among workers if their retirement age was suddenly raised, which means it would not be politically viable. Cutting benefits to retirees is also a solution that would not gain political support.

FICA taxes of 2.9 percent to support Medicare could also be increased and the cap raised to bring in more funding. However, America needs a more efficient system to provide health care to its citizens than Medicare, Medicaid and insurance through employers and bought privately. American health care is far more expensive than that of any other advanced nation, with no significant difference in outcomes. Americans pay more for necessary medications than any other advanced nation because no negotiations are allowed with pharmaceutical companies. With Medicare, Medicaid, and multiple insurance companies financing health care, all with different rules and benefits, providers find the system an administrative nightmare, increasing time and costs in caring for each patient.

A health care system is needed with uniform rules and benefits, like a Medicare for all, that could be supplemented by additional insurance. Medicare should also be permitted to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, with the understanding that drug prices for America would match those of the lowest price given by the companies to any other advanced nation. More efficient care would mean less expensive care and better care for all patients. However, government action to improve health care and Social Security are unlikely given the polarization between the two political parties. In all probability, health care and Social Security funding will be handled with some stop gap measure, rather than a permanent fix.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

The Case for Three Year Congressional Terms

The Case for Three Year Congressional Terms

                                                Robert A. Levine   2-6-23

For years, there has been considerable discussion about Congressional term limits to reduce corruption, the power of incumbency, and the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress. Term limits would also introduce new and younger members into Congress, where the average age now is close to sixty. However, another way to reform the House of Representatives, with or without term limits, would be to increase the term of members of Congress from two years to three years. This measure would require a Constitutional amendment but would have many positive effects on Congress and its elected members and aid the functioning of the Federal government.

With re-election looming every two years for members of Congress, an inordinate amount of time must be spent by Congressmen and women in raising money for their campaigns. This process literally starts the moment they enter the halls of Congress. Freshman members of Congress are instructed by their party leaders that ‘dialing for dollars’ is an important part of their jobs if they wish to be re-elected. In fact making calls to prospective donors and wealthy backers in and out of their districts is a daily task for most Congressmen and women, often consuming a number of hours each day. They also must meet with lobbyists and donors when they visit Washington and back in their districts when Congress is not in session. The time spent in pursuing funds often exceeds the time spent in in the process of legislating, proposing bills, reading bills of others, and actual Congressional work.

Because raising funds is so important with elections every two years, members of Congress are often willing to do favors for wealthy donors or lobbyists, influencing the way they vote. And in addition to the time employed in making fund-raising calls and individual meetings with lobbyists and donors, Congressmen and women must attend in-person fund raising events in Washington and in their home districts. These fund raisers are often set up for them by lobbyists and wealthy donors, allowing them to glad-hand and speak with people who may be willing to give them money.

Rather than Congresspersons with innovative ideas and legislative abilities, individuals who are the most prolific fundraisers are the people who advance faster and further to positions of power in Congress. This includes appointments to important committees and sub-committees, chairmanships of committees and party officers. In fact, some of the top Congressional fundraisers are able to help their fellow party members in Congress who are less adept at soliciting money. This puts the recipient in the debt of Congressional fundraisers, with a willingness to vote for and with these funders. The same pressure to raise money is not there for senators except during the last two years of their six year terms when re-election campaigns are nearing. Thus they have proportionately more time to be involved in the legislative process.

While term limits on its own may be a worthwhile reform, it will not end the constant need of members of Congress to raise funds for re-election. Ideally, funding for candidates should come from the government and be strictly limited, with no outside money or PACs allowed to play a role in political campaigns. But the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court makes this consideration impossible.

A three year term for Congressional members would not completely eliminate the requirement for time utilized in fundraising, but it would make the need less acute and take some of the pressure off of representatives. Perhaps it would even make them less susceptible to the blandishments offered by lobbyists and wealthy donors. They would have more time to devote to legislating instead of constantly pursuing funding.

The designers of the Constitution wanted two year terms for House members because they saw them as the voice of the people and expected them to constantly interact with their constituents and answerable to them. With social media and the internet, members of Congress can regularly interact with their constituents currently, sometimes to their chagrin, whether or not they are campaigning. Having to be re-elected every two years is no longer necessary. While having a three year term for Congressional members could be scheduled together for all members every three years, having one third of Congress elected every year for a three year term would keep the two parties working fervently to satisfy constituents, or control of Congress could change. This format would neither encourage nor discourage independents and third party candidates. It is a simple and needed change that would benefit the democratic process.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Barnes and Noble and Amazon

The Case for Three Year Congressional Terms

The Case for Three Year Congressional Terms

                                                Robert A. Levine  2-6-23

For years, there has been considerable discussion about Congressional term limits to reduce corruption, the power of incumbency, and the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress. Term limits would also introduce new and younger members into Congress, where the average age now is close to sixty. However, another way to reform the House of Representatives, with or without term limits, would be to increase the term of members of Congress from two years to three years. This measure would require a Constitutional amendment but would have many positive effects on Congress and its elected members and aid the functioning of the Federal government.

With re-election looming every two years for members of Congress, an inordinate amount of time must be spent by Congressmen and women in raising money for their campaigns. This process literally starts the moment they enter the halls of Congress. Freshman members of Congress are instructed by their party leaders that ‘dialing for dollars’ is an important part of their jobs if they wish to be re-elected. In fact making calls to prospective donors and wealthy backers in and out of their districts is a daily task for most Congressmen and women, often consuming a number of hours each day. They also must meet with lobbyists and donors when they visit Washington and back in their districts when Congress is not in session. The time spent in pursuing funds often exceeds the time spent in in the process of legislating, proposing bills, reading bills of others, and actual Congressional work.

Because raising funds is so important with elections every two years, members of Congress are often willing to do favors for wealthy donors or lobbyists, influencing the way they vote. And in addition to the time employed in making fund-raising calls and individual meetings with lobbyists and donors, Congressmen and women must attend in-person fund raising events in Washington and in their home districts. These fund raisers are often set up for them by lobbyists and wealthy donors, allowing them to glad-hand and speak with people who may be willing to give them money.

Rather than Congresspersons with innovative ideas and legislative abilities, individuals who are the most prolific fundraisers are the people who advance faster and further to positions of power in Congress. This includes appointments to important committees and sub-committees, chairmanships of committees and party officers. In fact, some of the top Congressional fundraisers are able to help their fellow party members in Congress who are less adept at soliciting money. This puts the recipient in the debt of Congressional fundraisers, with a willingness to vote for and with these funders. The same pressure to raise money is not there for senators except during the last two years of their six year terms when re-election campaigns are nearing. Thus they have proportionately more time to be involved in the legislative process.

While term limits on its own may be a worthwhile reform, it will not end the constant need of members of Congress to raise funds for re-election. Ideally, funding for candidates should come from the government and be strictly limited, with no outside money or PACs allowed to play a role in political campaigns. But the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court makes this consideration impossible.

A three year term for Congressional members would not completely eliminate the requirement for time utilized in fundraising, but it would make the need less acute and take some of the pressure off of representatives. Perhaps it would even make them less susceptible to the blandishments offered by lobbyists and wealthy donors. They would have more time to devote to legislating instead of constantly pursuing funding.

The designers of the Constitution wanted two year terms for House members because they saw them as the voice of the people and expected them to constantly interact with their constituents and answerable to them. With social media and the internet, members of Congress can regularly interact with their constituents currently, sometimes to their chagrin, whether or not they are campaigning. Having to be re-elected every two years is no longer necessary. While having a three year term for Congressional members could be scheduled together for all members every three years, having one third of Congress elected every year for a three year term would keep the two parties working fervently to satisfy constituents, or control of Congress could change. This format would neither encourage nor discourage independents and third party candidates. It is a simple and needed change that would benefit the democratic process.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Barnes and Noble and Amazon

America the Outlier

America the Outlier

            Robert A. Levine 1/24/23

Being an outlier nation can be either good or bad depending on the issue in question. With high GDP or per capita wealth it is obviously good being an outlier in a positive direction as America is. In terms of income inequality being high, it’s bad to be an outlier. In a number of areas such as cost of health care, availability of child care and various social programs, America is a negative outlier. However, probably the worst aspect of American life where the nation is an overwhelming outlier is in the number of gun deaths and mass shootings, where no other nation in the world is even close to the mayhem seen in America.

In fact, the next ten advanced nations added together do not match the annual number of gun deaths in America. The reason for the excessive number of gun deaths is simple. America has more guns per capita than any advanced nation. Actually, there are more guns in circulation in the U.S. than the number of people. And not only are there more guns, people have access to automatic weapons and enlarged magazines to augment the number of bullets a weapon can fire before it has to be reloaded. This allows more people to be killed when a gunman decides that he wants to become a mass killer for one reason or another. (Women are rarely involved in mass shootings.)

Domestic terrorists associated with white nationalist groups are one of the sources of mass killers, usually aimed at minority groups.  However, the two recent mass shootings in California show the disease has spread to Asian-Americans who previously might have been considered targets. However, the two largest groups of people involved in mass killings are mentally deranged individuals and criminal gangs, the latter often using guns to settle turf wars with other gangs. Domestic violence is another factor in mass shootings usually limited to family members.

Aside from mass killings, individual lives are often taken in criminal activities, personal vendettas, or from mentally disturbed individuals. There are also more gun deaths by suicide in America than in any other country. The answer to cutting down on the epidemic of gun deaths is straight forward: cut down on the number of guns. This is merely common sense, but the National Rifle Association, gun lobbies and right-wing zealots are opposed to any common sense measures to reduce gun deaths, claiming that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” They claim that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to own an unlimited number of weapons of all types. However, the Second Amendment is ambiguous in its wording and could be interpreted in several ways, including that arms should be possessed by militia members. The Second Amendment was also written at a time when automatic weapons with extended magazines were not available and when ghost guns that are not registered could not be made by computers at home.

There is no reason for America to be an outlier with its number of gun deaths. Gun ownership should be limited to rifles for hunters and pistols for home self-defense, or for special situations to allow carry outside the home. The majority of Americans want automatic weapons, extended magazines and ghost guns banned and some surveys show that many gun owners feel the same way. But the power of the NRA, gun lobbyists and the right wing gun activists means that Americans will likely continue to kill Americans at an alarming rate and be an outlier in the civilized world.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

But The Uninformed Voter on Amazon or Barnes and Noble

Resumed Do-Nothing Congress

Presumed Do-Nothing Congress

                Robert A. Levine  1-10-23

The control of the House of Representatives into Republican hands and the chaotic and traumatic election of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House is predictive of government gridlock and dysfunction. McCarthy squandered much of the power of the Speaker’s position in order to get elected and it is hard to imagine how he will be able to govern with any degree of efficiency. The Republican House candidates ran for office without a definitive platform, except to investigate Democratic officials and the programs that Democrats have initiated. Also a desire to cut government spending, even if it affects social programs like Medicare and Social Security.

McCarthy has allotted chairmanships of important committees to MAGA Congressmen like Jim Jordan, who have already indicated that their man objective is going to be to investigate Democrats. A number of elected Republicans continue to be election deniers and want to re-litigate the 2020 election which they claim that Trump actually won. This is a formula for a government that is non-functional and will not be able to accomplish anything positive for the American public.

The major problem is that McCarthy does not have a working majority in the House to get things done. At least twenty of the GOP members of the House who ultimately voted for him as Speaker demanded and received special concessions and will be able to block any bipartisan legislation or spending bills. A single Congress person can also call for a vote of confidence at any time for the Speaker’s position, diluting much of McCarthy’s power. To keep these votes of confidence at a minimum, he may have to negotiate frequently with individual Congress persons, forcing him to make further concessions.

In order to govern effectively, McCarthy and House GOP members have to come up with specific programs that they wish to pass to move America forward. Changing House rules and investigating government activities is insufficient to positively impact the nation. Unfortunately, many of those recalcitrant Republicans come from deep red districts whose voters don’t care how their representatives conduct themselves in Washington. Some constituents just demand loyalty to Donald Trump or opposition to anything the Democrats propose.

Important spending bills and extension of the nation’s debt limit come up for votes this year. If Republicans block these bills or demand extensive changes, they may damage the world and America’s economy and the nation’s standing in the world. These Republicans are not a good advertisement for a democratic style of government and play into the hands of our autocratic opponents. Unfortunately, some of these House Republicans covertly or overtly support Putin and the Russian government and would be only too happy to see an autocratic government in place in America. The idea of compromise is anathema to many of these politicians who insist that it is ‘my way or the highway’ in governing America.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Brexit, UK Nationalism and Economic Decline

Brexit, UK Nationalism and Economic Decline

                                    Robert A. Levine    12-27-22

The malign effects of nationalism has been manifest through Brexit’s impact on the British economy and its relationship with European nations. The referendum on Brexit by British citizens in June 2016 passed by about three percentage points, pushing the government to have the UK leave the EU. The British population was sold a bill of goods by nationalists who wanted separation from the European Union because they felt the E.U. was interfering with British prerogatives and culture. The British masses did not like the rules that the E.U. imposed on all member nations, feeling that it interfered with British independence and freedom. There seemed to be little understanding among British voters that when a nation is a member of a group, it has to compromise with other members and loses some of its autonomy.

The British population was warned by its economists that divorce from the European Union would have negative consequences for the British economy in both the short and long term. They predicted that per capita income level and GDP would both be decreased with a separation from the E.U. An estimate from British government agencies noted that economic growth in the UK would diminish from 2-8 percent for fifteen or more years after Brexit. Many of Britain’s trade partners are on the European continent and erecting trade barriers in both directions would only hurt the transfer of goods. But the British nationalists and the Conservative Party ignored economic warnings in going ahead with Brexit despite the likely consequences of the separation from the E.U. The predictions of the economists has proven to be quite true and the U.K is now suffering from the ignorance and nationalist feelings of the British voter with its effects on the British economy.

As soon as Brexit was passed, many EU citizens who had been working in specialized fields in the UK, such as technology and heavy industry, and generalized work such as in hospitality jobs and restaurants, left Britain and returned to their home nations on the continent, feeling that they were not wanted. This had an immediate effect on the British economy which has worsened over time. There is a dearth of both skilled and unskilled workers currently in the UK. Because of the lack of workers, inflation has spiked in the UK more than in the rest of the developed world. Certainly there are other factors also playing a role such as Covid 19 and supply chain issues, but the fact is that many industries can’t find workers. Particularly hard hit are restaurants, unable to find trained servers and kitchen personnel. All kinds of hospitality workers are unavailable. Since tourism is an important source of income to the UK, restaurant, hotel and entertainment venues are all suffering. Some establishments have closed and others have cut their hours to make do with fewer worker.

This economic disaster is the result of British nationalism which railed against EU rules and foreign immigrants. With low birth rates and population decreases, immigrants are necessary in all developed nations to bolster their economies. This is a warning to nationalists worldwide including the United States. Unemployment is low and many jobs are not being filled. To maintain a strong economy, immigrants are a necessity.

www.robertlevinebooks.com                                             

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble