Resurrecting Democracy

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Inequality- Any Hope For Change?

            Robert A. Levine       5-18-16 

In January 2016, Oxfam reported a major increase in global inequality, with just sixty-two people owning as much wealth as 3.5 billion people in the lower half of the world’s income scale. Inequality is inherent in capitalism, where those who are smarter or were born into the right family or work harder or take more risks can accumulate wealth and enjoy its benefits. Most people accept that individuals who have greater responsibility or perform at higher levels or are more valuable to society should receive more compensation than their peers. Yet there are limits to how much inequality is acceptable in any society. This is particularly so if some of the acquisition of wealth is perceived to have been accomplished in an inappropriate or immoral fashion. Some of the most affluent may also showcase their money in ways that provoke anger along with envy in those less fortunate. They may also use their money to buy political power, corrupting politicians and elected officials.

An important consideration in reducing inequality is how to curb generational conveyance of wealth. If this is not addressed, an increasing concentration of a nation’s (and the world’s) assets will be possessed by a smaller number of families, which can be passed on indefinitely and employed to amass power, either directly or indirectly. For democratic societies to survive and flourish, equality of opportunity and meritocracy must be maintained, rather than control of the state and its institutions by inherited wealth.

Over the last quarter-century, with marginal tax rates lowered, financial rewards from the performance of the American economy have gone disproportionately to the most affluent, while little has filtered down to the middle- and lower-income strata. The Walton family alone had more wealth than 42 percent of American families. Still, the American dream remains ingrained in society; that intelligence and individual effort can result in upward mobility and people can reach the top through hard work.

The continued growth of inequality has only accelerated since the recovery from the recession of 2007-2008. To some degree, uninformed citizens voting against their own interests played a role. Globalization, computerization, and the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs have also contributed. As noted in the Harvard Business Review, the huge rise in economic inequality has been the result of technological changes and political decisions including financial market reregulation, free trade, tax code changes, and various other policy choices.

Another factor often overlooked in burgeoning inequality has been assortive mating- the tendency for successful men and women to marry one another. Lawyers are more likely to marry other lawyers or other high-income professionals, as are physicians, business executives, and so forth. Thus, these families earn more and greater wealth is concentrated in their hands.

Currently, a small number of individuals control inordinate amounts of wealth in most democracies. In the United States, the ultra-rich 0.01% of the populace was reported to have 11.1% of the nation’s wealth in 2014, with the top 1% having 39.8% of the wealth, an astounding $32.6 trillion. These statistics do not consider assets held in offshore accounts which would skew the percentages even further. The upper 1 percent earns nearly a quarter of the nation’s income annually.

The richest 0.01% has quadrupled their share of America’s wealth since 1980, a time when they were already quite affluent. In fact, according to Forbes, the richest four hundred Americans alone were worth an unbelievable $2.29 trillion in 2013, increased by $270 billion from the previous year. To a major degree, government policy which voters have allowed has been responsible for the affluent being able to accumulate this immensely unequal share of assets, while the middle class has stagnated financially and poverty appears to be intractable. Income inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any other nation in the developed world by a large percentage. Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has said that “America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way.”

And wealth creates wealth. The more disposable income and excess capital an individual possesses, the more extra money he or she can accrue through investments. Then, that additional surplus money can be reinvested along with the original sums, creating greater and greater wealth for that person and his or her family. This is not necessarily bad for society, creating more businesses, jobs and so forth. But limits must somehow be set. To a certain degree in democracies, many of the ultra-rich have achieved the same status nobility were accorded in feudal societies, living in castles with servants and bodyguards, their every desire gratified.

Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the 21^st Century noted- “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the 19^th century and seems quite likely to do again in the 21^st, capitalism generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and insure that the general interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding protectionist and nationalist reactions.” Thus, one of the major objectives of democratic societies must be achieving in a rational fashion the lessening of the concentration of wealth in only a few hands.

In 2005, the most affluent 300,000 Americans made as much as the bottom 150 million. The income gap was almost double that existing in 1980. The growth in income for top corporate executives and the excessive compensation going to investment bankers and financiers have been responsible for much of the inequality. A chief executive at one of the leading one hundred corporations in America in 1977 made about fifty times the pay of its average worker. Thirty years later, these CEOs made about 1100 times the wages of an average employee.

Though the financial industry, the energy sector, and high-tech companies, had the largest annual payouts for their officers, virtually all corporations have been rewarding their major executives with increasingly high salaries. But the financial industry provided the highest salaries by far. Wall Street pay broke a record in both 2009 and 2010 in spite of the damage these firms had done to the economy and the need for government bailouts. Financial firms in 1984 generated about one-seventh of the profits of all businesses in the US. By 2009, it was more than a quarter and had been as high as a third at the height of the boom in 2006.

While compensation for CEOs was once supposed to be tied to company performance, this idea has been mostly abandoned. In good times and bad times, executive compensation keeps rising, even while many of these corporations slash pensions and health care benefits, lay off workers, and sometimes flirt with bankruptcy. 

Though there have always been differences in wealth and standards of living among US citizens, those who struggled were sustained with the belief that America was a meritocracy and that anyone could rise to the top. Whether this perception was valid does not matter, as it infused Americans with optimism about their ability to transcend origins and status to realize whatever their dreams might be. This is in the process of changing (aside from high-tech savants) as an aristocracy of wealth is developing, its members having the power and ability to shape the world to fit their needs and expectations. Whether a more equal distribution of wealth can ever be attained depends on the voters and who they choose to represent them.          

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Free Trade, Good or Bad?

              Robert A. Levine   5-3-16

With Trump and Sanders arguing against trade pacts, is free trade good or bad for the U.S. The United States in 2015 reached a deal with eleven other Pacific nations for a trade zone called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to lower trade barriers and establish rules and regulations for the involved countries. Approximately 40 percent of the global economy would be included in the partnership. However, first it has to be approved by Congress as well as legislative bodies in the other participating countries. While this would be helpful in counteracting the commercial power of China, there is a lot of opposition in the United States, with unions fearing job losses and environmental groups concerned as well. There is also Republican resistance over providing President Obama with any sort of victory by voting for the TPP. Multinational corporations for the most part are in favor of the pact.

While free trade between nations would appear to provide significant benefits as shown by the E.U, there are problems that have to be worked out to truly reap these benefits. Though protectionist policies may temporarily save jobs in high cost countries, eventually products that are manufactured less expensively will command the marketplace. And though cheap labor may attract global corporations to certain countries, sophisticated workers may be required for particular jobs, increasingly so as work is performed by robots and computers. There is also the cost of transporting goods made in another country thousands of miles distant to the nation where the product will be used. Disregarding environmental protections to lower production costs will also come back to haunt nations that allow this. Health has been impaired in countries such as China that has to clean up the pollution in its air, soil, and water. Nations look after their own interests and global free trade will only become a reality when enough nations believe it suits them.

The bottom line is that there are winners and losers in free trade and trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP. And years or even decades may be necessary to determine whether the benefits exceeded the damages for the nations that sign the agreements. Even economists have had difficulty deciding whether free trade helps developed countries or hurts them, though in the past, most thought that in the long run it was beneficial. As trade generally augments global economic output, economists believed that workers whose jobs vanished because of imports would rapidly find work in other fields that were expanding. Now, they are not so sure. Currently, there is much debate among economists over whether trade deals have been worthwhile for America. Previously, when trade was mainly between rich countries, labor costs were not that different from nation to nation. But trade agreements with nations whose labor is exceeding cheap compared to developed nations have been a different ballgame.

Many economists believe that the TPP will result in job losses and increased income inequality in all the participating nations, but even more so in the United States. There is little question that China, Japan, and Korea used America’s desire for free trade for their own advantage over the years, protecting their own nascent industries and using currency manipulation to sell goods to the U.S. and other developed nations. And trade imbalances between China and the United States have continued, with exports from the U.S. much smaller than imports from China, giving the latter nation a persistent surplus. If exports to China had increased proportionately, with Chinese consumers buying imported products instead of saving their money, many more jobs might have been generated in America. That would have diminished unemployment and underemployment, along with some of the global trade imbalance. Trade agreements may have saved some American corporations’ intellectual property and copyrights, and respect for some patents by foreign governments, but they did nothing for American workers.

Though the goods that came to America from China and other countries may have been cheaper than those made by American industries, and American consumers benefitted from this, many factories and businesses were ruined by the influx of these inexpensive products, and millions of workers lost decent-paying jobs. And even though some American products were sold to nations abroad through these trade agreements, there was pressure to keep prices down to compete with cheap labor in other countries. This resulted in diminished wages for those American workers who kept their jobs. Multi-national corporations and their executives did well with these trade agreements, but the average worker, particularly those who were uneducated, were badly hurt. Government programs for further education and retraining for different fields have not been adequate to salve the wounds of those who lost jobs and the reasonable wages they were earning. And it should be remembered that it was American companies like Walmart that were importing the products from China and other low-wage countries to heighten their own profits, disregarding the effect it would have on American workers.

Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left have used rhetoric that resonates with the disaffected middle and lower classes, white men with high school educations or less, who are now unemployed or unable to find well-paying jobs that would propel them back into the middle class. But the candidates’ promises to bring factory jobs back from Mexico or China ring false. The jobs will not return even if the factories do. Trump’s idea of 45 percent tariffs on Chinese products and breaking NAFTA will accomplish nothing for American workers but will raise prices for consumers. With factories increasingly automated globally, those that once employed five hundred workers, may now be able to function well with five or ten workers to see that the robots and computers are running smoothly.

It is no different than mega-farming where mechanization has cut the number of men and women needed to pick vegetables. Fifty years ago, 45,000 workers were required to pick and sort 2.2 million tons of tomatoes for ketchup in California. In 2000, only 5000 workers were necessary to harvest 12 million tons with the machines that had been developed. As farm output has skyrocketed, employment in that sector has fallen in the U.S. during the 20^th century from 41 percent to 2 percent. Manufacturing employment can be expected to follow a similar course, no matter what the politicians say. At present it encompasses 8.5 percent of non-farm jobs, down from 24 percent in 1950, and may have further to go.

Though changes in trade policy may not make a significant difference in manufacturing employment, developed nations including the United States should try and maintain as much manufacturing domestically as possible, even with the smaller number of workers that will be utilized. However, de-industrialization in advanced countries means transitioning to a service economy, with well-paying jobs that require at least some level of education or training. Funds for retraining will have to come from government, industry, or both. In the United States, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have paid enough attention to the travails of unemployed disaffected workers, stoking populist anger that has yet to be assuaged. Perhaps now, their angry voices will begin to be heard.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Who Says That America Is A Democracy?

Who Says America Is A Democracy?     4-21-16

                                    Robert A. Levine

America was born as a republic, not a democracy, with only property-holding or tax-paying white males allowed to vote. Over time, Constitutional amendments extended the vote to black males and then to all women. But supposed universal suffrage did not make America a democracy. Its mistaken identity particularly stands out during this season of presidential primaries.

There is no mention of political parties or primaries in the Constitution. The way the primary system was set up during the last century to pick presidential candidates is anything but democratic. With its caucuses and primary voting to pick delegates, and the large number of super-delegates who may be party stalwarts but have not been chosen by the voters for their roles, the selection of presidential candidates is not driven by democratic processes. (Even The Donald, who now appears to be the GOP candidate, has complained about this.)While candidates in the past were decided by the party bosses, the current extended primary system now in use may not be any better.

And the Electoral College mechanism to choose the winning presidential candidate in the general election is also undemocratic. (Just ask Al Gore.) The winner does not have to have the majority of the popular vote as long as he or she has a majority of the Electoral College votes, by winning a combination of the right states. Is this democracy?

Consider the Senate where each state gets to elect two members of this august body. This means that California with a population of 37 million has the same power in the Senate as Wyoming with a population of less than 600,000. The structure of the Senate was established in the Constitution and was meant to be undemocratic, and it certainly is. In the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, there were more votes for Democratic senators than for Republicans, though the GOP now has a majority in the Senate.

The House is dominated by conservative Republicans, many of whom were elected in districts gerrymandered by Republican state legislatures. The members of Congress from these districts have virtually safe seats because of the gerrymandering which does not follow natural boundary lines and stuffs Democratic voters into other districts where their votes are less meaningful. In 2012 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party nationally had a plurality of 1.4 million votes more than the Republicans. Yet the Republicans won 33 more seats in the House. This was the result of redistricting after the 2010 census. No surprise. It may not be fair and may not be democratic, but it’s American politics.

The Court system which is supposed to be independent of political parties has become increasingly politicized at all levels as evidenced by the Republican Senate’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Not democratic and not following precedent. The conservative Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizen’s United and the McCutcheon decisions also allowed big donors to put unlimited sums behind political candidates, using the idea that this was freedom of speech. Give me a break. This was done to help wealthy donors control the electoral process and elect more conservatives to office.

With the help of the court system, affluent Americans and corporate interests now control the Senate and the House and are going after the presidency. They also control the majority of state legislatures and governorships with the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council and dollars from conservative donors. Is it democracy in action when some Americans can give hundreds of millions of dollars to support their candidates and most Americans can only give hundreds (or even less). Money talks and big donors have loud voices. Also, in the 501 (c) 4 organizations, donors can give sums anonymously and perhaps take a tax deduction if it’s for a so-called “social welfare” cause.

Many of the state legislatures have also passed laws to restrict voting with certain IDs necessary in order to register. Numerous older people and minorities who wish to vote do not have the required IDs and have difficulty obtaining them, and thus cannot vote. Also ease of voting has been limited by having fewer places to vote and fewer days when voting is allowed, also making it more difficult for older people and minorities to vote. Is this democracy?

And why isn’t there a centrist third party in America? Most polls have about 40 percent of American self-labeling themselves as independents or centrists. But there is no party to represent them. The duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans has made it extremely difficult at the state level for a national third party to take root. So a large portion of citizens do not vote or vote for a party that’s the lesser of two evils because there’s no other choice. Is this democracy? Who says that America is a democracy?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Photo by Shutterstock

Democracies and Demographics

 Demographics Robert A. Levine 3-30-16

Demographic changes occurring in developed nations presage a different future for these states. In relation to these changes, two elements must be considered in these countries. One is the current age distribution of the population and how it is expected to evolve, including the birth rate and life expectancy. The second is how the revamped racial, ethnic and religious make-up of these countries resulting from immigration, will affect the culture and values that have been an essential part of the society’s DNA. As a nation’s population diversifies, roles of men and women, relationships, values and even its language may be transformed over time, with new words and phrases being used and ultimately integrated into everyday speech. The ubiquity of the Internet and social media may make some of these changes occur at warp speed, perhaps without conscious recognition by the populace of what is happening.

As life expectancy increases and birth rates diminish, the population is aging to varying degrees in all advanced democracies. Between the census in 2000 and that of 2010, the number of people in the U.S. over age sixty-five increased at a 15.1 percent rate. 13 percent of the population was sixty-five and over in 2010, with 5.9 percent seventy-five and over. By 2030, it is projected that nearly 20 percent of Americans will be sixty-five and over, with further growth of the older population over the following decades. One of the questions raised by these statistics is will the nation have enough young people to support Social Security and Medicare for the elderly and disabled, while the young save adequately for themselves. This is one reason that immigration to America should be encouraged. Most of those who want to come here are of working age and will bolster the nation’s economy and preserve its safety-nets.

Aside from undocumented immigrants, the nation’s aggregate minority population is estimated to become the majority by 2042, a sign of America’s growth and the health of its economy. Minority women are generally younger and have higher birth rates than the rest of the U.S. population, so it is likely their percentages will continue to increase even without immigration. In 2012, minority births comprised 50.2% of the total versus 37 percent in 1990. And minorities encompassed 49.7 percent of children under age five. Unless there is a sudden unexpected surge of Caucasian women becoming pregnant multiple times in the next few years, the U.S. will need more men and women of color as well as Caucasian immigrants to remain a strong, relatively youthful, and vibrant nation. Immigrants bring with them new blood, new ideas, and strong backs.

Western European nations, and developed Asian democracies, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, have even greater problems than the U.S. in terms of aging populations with birth rates below what is necessary for replacement of their populations (2.1 percent is needed). These demographic changes have impacted their work forces, economies, and safety nets, and will cause even more difficulties in the future. For example, Germany’s birth rate is 1.4, Holland’s 1.8, Spain and Italy, 1.4. Though the UK and Ireland have rates of 1.9 and 2.1, much of this is derived from non-European immigrant parents. South Korea’s fertility rate is 1.25, Taiwan 1.11, and Japan’s 1.4, all insufficient to replace their populations. There are a number of reasons for the low birth rates in these countries. Perhaps most important is the fact that women are better educated. They derive pleasure from work, high incomes, and independence and many want to remain in the work force instead of staying home to raise children. Because of this they frequently delay having babies, and may have fewer offspring or none at all. In addition, child care is often inadequate and grandparents are not in the households to provide help. At times, marriage is also postponed or women may choose to stay single since they are able to support themselves.

There are two possible ways democracies with low birth rates could grow their populations. The first would be to encourage native-born women to have more children and propagate at an earlier age. For this to happen, the countries must have safe, inexpensive child care to allow women to continue working after they give birth. If the governments provided a bonus or premium to women when they have children, it would also encourage more pregnancies, as would a tax benefit tied to children. In addition, government support for education at all levels would reinforce women considering pregnancies, as the expense of schooling is a major constraint for parents who would like to have children. An advertising campaign that promoted babies as a patriotic effort might also increase birth rates. Removing any remaining stigma for single women who bear children would also likely inspire more pregnancies. The second alternative is through immigration, these nations invigorating their economies with young people from other countries. These migrants who will increase the work forces will also protect the social compacts with retirees. However, the nations in Europe and Asia have had homogeneous populations for centuries and unlike the United States, there is no history of large scale immigration. In addition, the preponderance of immigrants who want to enter and live in the E.U. are Muslims from the Middle East, Asia or North Africa, or blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, with vastly different cultures and religions than the nations where they wish to reside. Because of the considerable dissimilarities, these new immigrants appear to have more trouble integrating into the mainstreams of their adopted countries, than immigrants in the U.S.

Whatever the problems that exist, it is a necessary marriage of convenience for both the Europeans and the immigrants. They must both learn to live together and work together. The main source of immigrants for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan is mainland China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. With similar traditions and cultural practices, Taiwan should be able to absorb Chinese immigrants more easily than those from other nations. However, any surplus labor in China will diminish in the next several decades due to their one-child policy, and their society itself will also be aging. The strongly monolithic societies of Japan and South Korea are currently having difficulty accepting the foreign immigrants who are living in their midst, but even more will be needed in the future, so accommodations must be made. There are demographic realities that must be accepted. Mixing of populations in all developed countries will cause pain on both sides, but is a necessity to maintain economic growth and to support older nationals.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Science Denied

            Robert A. Levine   11-11-15

One of the foundations of Western civilization has been a belief in science and the ability to utilize new discoveries in practical ways to improve and extend human life. Yet currently, the citizens of many Western nations are rejecting scientific information and recommended responses as being valid, spurning behavior changes on the basis of this knowledge. Scientific data is being endorsed or denied in different nations because of long held biases, religious beliefs, economic incentives, and so forth. And evidence does not seem to make a difference. Two major areas of global importance where science has been disregarded are climate change and the safety of genetically modified crops (GMOs- genetically modified organisms).

Republican conservative politicians in the United States deny that climate change is real and doubt whether mankind could be responsible if global warming is indeed occurring. Because of this, they have refused to pass laws to address this critical issue. This is in spite of the fact that climate scientists have repeatedly shown that global warming is real and caused by human activity, particularly the burning of coal and oil which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Methane and nitrous oxide are also “greenhouse” gases like carbon dioxide that trap the earth’s heat and result in the warming of the planet. Backed by the fossil fuel lobby and the Koch brothers, Republicans claim that controlling carbon emissions to cut down on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would damage the American economy and that there is not enough evidence to warrant this action.

Fortunately, rational Americans like President Obama accept the veracity of global warming and his administration has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gases, in conjunction with China and Europe. The majority of Americans, including those who deny global warming, appear to believe that GMOs are not dangerous and are willing to eat foods containing ingredients from GMO crops. A significant minority, however, including environmentalists who want to stop global warming, are afraid of GMOs and refuse to ingest them, ignoring the scientific evidence of their safety.

For the most part, Europeans feel that global warming is a real threat and have taken steps to cut down on the production of greenhouse gases. (Interestingly, their testing for automobile emissions has not been as stringent as in the U. S, allowing Volkswagon and other automobile companies to game the system.) But Europeans are almost uniformly against GMOs, calling them “frankenfoods” and believing the lies and propaganda against them. This false information has been generated mainly by environmentalists in groups like Greenpeace. Seventeen countries have recently banned GMO cultivation on the basis of the popular belief that they are dangerous. Many farmers as well as scientists have argued against this ban, realizing that GMOs increase crop yields and are safe to eat. Instead, farmers have to use pesticides and chemicals that may leach into the local water supply to control insects and crop diseases to produce foods for European consumption.

This ban on GMO cultivation will check development in this promising area of biotech science in European universities and corporations. The Scientific Advisory Council of the European Academy of Science had previously warned that European countries were lagging other nations internationally in agricultural and biotech innovation and new technologies such as genetic research. This could have future economic ramifications for the European Union.

But even more importantly, African countries have followed the European lead in not cultivating crops that are genetically modified, concerned about potential side effects that are non-existent. There are worries that GMOs can produce sexual dysfunction or homosexuality, which is of course ridiculous. This means, however, that drought-resistant, insect-resistant, and disease-resistant crops will not be grown in sub-Saharan Africa, though these could enhance crop yields dramatically and provide foods that would alleviate hunger and famine, reducing the number of malnourished children.

A number of people in the U.S. and Europe (particularly those afraid of GMOs) are also resistant to having their children vaccinated, believing this increases the chances of autism or other developmental problems. Again, the scientific evidence has disproved this theory and vaccinations are necessary for the safety of all children. And there are other instances as well, where people disregard scientific evidence that should shape their beliefs, reinforced perhaps by what children are taught in some schools (creationism, intelligent design, and non-acceptance of evolution).

Science has provided data that clearly shows global warming is real, foods containing GMOs are safe, and vaccinations are safe and necessary. Yet many people choose to think otherwise, ignoring the evidence that is available and acting in unacceptable ways. And at times the leaders of democratic nations acquiesce and pass laws that are unreasonable in light of the scientific data, or refuse to pass other laws that are necessary. Citizens and legislators need to accept scientific evidence to guide their behavior, but obviously this is often disregarded. A problem for democracy and the world.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Image by Shutterstock

Where Are The Decent Candidates?

                   Robert A. Levine  10-21-15 

At this stage of the 2016 presidential campaign, the United States has no worthy candidates running in either party. All the entries are deeply flawed, particularly the front-runners. Washington itself is severely dysfunctional and perhaps this has frightened potential candidates from throwing their hats in the ring. Looking at the trouble Republicans are having finding a Speaker of the House reinforces how difficult it is for politicians to get things done. But how can America not have a single candidate that elicits admiration from the majority of the electorate? 

On the Republican side, the leader in the polls is Donald Trump, a man with absolutely no experience in politics or government. His main attribute is a big mouth which he opens frequently to denigrate other candidates or government figures. His major policy pronouncement is that he knows how to get things done, giving few specifics when questioned. His conservative bona fides are littered with past positions that would make most liberals happy, that he subsequently reversed to run as a Republican. Yet a significant portion of the conservative base loves this blowhard and his campaign rallies draw larger crowds than any other candidate. 

Running right behind Trump is Ben Carson, a soft-spoken pediatric neurosurgeon who thinks he’d make a fine president. Yet his off the cuff comments make one wonder about his supposed wisdom. He got it all wrong giving advice to parents regarding children’s vaccinations, an area about which he should have known better. He also said that if the Jews in Germany had had guns, Hitler would not have been able to exterminate them. Obviously he was unaware that Jews were only 1 percent of the German population and fighting against the SS, the Gestapo and other Nazi organizations would have gotten them nowhere. And his comment that abortion has killed more blacks than anything else was complete nonsense, as was another comment equating Obamacare with slavery. America is still awaiting definitive policy positions from Mr. Carson. 

Carly Fiorina did a lousy job at Lucent Technology and ruined Hewlitt Packard, a major American corporation, with 30,000 workers laid off during her tenure and the stock price plummeting 55 percent. With that resume, she now wants to run the whole country? If she were a man we could say she really has balls. Anyway, her stock now seems to be dropping. 

Marco Rubio of Cuban origin seems to be gaining some traction. However, he once pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, changing his tune and becoming anti-immigrant in his run for the presidential nomination. His attendance record on votes in the Senate has also been a matter of concern, as he has been a persistent no-show. 

Jeb Bush, the Bush entry in the presidential sweepstakes reminds one of a wet dish rag. His charisma rating is in the toilet and his candidacy appears to be going nowhere despite his early entry and accumulation of cash. 

Ted Cruz is Ted Cruz, a one-man wrecking crew who wants to take down the U.S. government. Since his Senate election he’s been trying to make a name for himself, throwing a monkey wrench into the wheels of the Senate whenever he’s been able. Presidential stature? No way. 

The remaining Republican candidates have not been able to gain any traction with the primary voters and the chances of any of them winning the nomination are nil. The Democrats have a limited number of candidates vying for the nomination, with only three of them of interest. 

The current Democratic leader in the presidential sweepstakes is Hillary Clinton who has dropped significantly in popularity since her entry into the race. Some of this decline can be ascribed to the Benghazi Committee’s purposeful leaks regarding her use of private email to transmit classified information and the pounding she has been taking from Republican Super PACs. But the fact remains that she did use private email to handle State Department business. The Republicans can also go back and tar her with Whitewater, her failed attempt at developing a comprehensive health plan, her work for the Rose law firm in Little Rock, and so forth. There’s a lot of dirt under Hillary’s nails that the Republicans can use, much of it known and some of it perhaps unknown. And a majority of the American public (57%) does not consider her honest and trustworthy (CNN/ORC June poll). Not a good starting point for a presidential bid. 

Bernie Sanders is a nice man with some good ideas and he’s 74 years old. He has also been against gun control because he’s from Vermont, a rural state. Frankly, that’s a lame excuse for a supposed progressive and shows his values are shaped by expediency, rather than doing what is right. He also likes his “democratic socialist” label which will not earn him many votes from centrists or independents. 

Joe Biden has waited too long to enter the race and would not make a good candidate given his history of gaffes. Raising adequate funds would also be a problem at this time. No go Joe. 

How can it be that America does not have any decent candidates running for its most important and powerful office? Are our politics and government so dysfunctional that no one suitable wants to make the effort? How would Mike Bloomberg do running as an independent?  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/dealbook/a-bloomberg-run-drums-are-beating.html?_r=0

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Image by Shutterstock

 

 

 

 

Benefits of Immigration

                        Robert A. Levine   10-14-15 

With all the Republican candidates for president and conservatives in the House pushing for limits on immigration and most wanting the return of undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin, thought should be given to the benefits these new arrivals bring. They provide value not only for America, but for European nations, Australia, Canada and Japan. Whether the immigrants are trying to escape political turmoil, war, famine, and death, religious or ethnic persecution, or to find economic opportunities that were unavailable to them, makes no difference. They have traveled hundreds to thousands of miles and endured hardships and dangers to reach their destinations and start new lives. Their will and perseverance is indicative of the kind of citizens they can be. 

The nations which immigrants have chosen as their destinations all happen to have aging populations and the new arrivals for the most part are young and vigorous. This means that their labor will provide boosts to the nations’ economies, and their taxes and fees will support Social Security and the safety nets for the older people who are about to retire or have already done so. 

The immigrants have left poor countries and come to wealthier ones where they will have the opportunities to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Overwhelmingly, they are not looking for handouts but for work, and are willing for the most part to take jobs that many native-born citizens would not consider. In the United States and other developed countries, the immigrants toil in agriculture, hospitality, and fast food restaurants, as maids, landscapers, gardeners, and dishwashers, as nurses’ aides and home health aides attending to sick or elderly people, and also enlist in the military. They provide services and generate products that would otherwise be lacking as they grow the economies of these nations. And not only do their new homelands enjoy the fruits of their labor, but these immigrants also help the economies as consumers, buying goods that would otherwise not be bought. 

With economic expansion from their efforts, they are also increasing the tax base and providing revenue to all levels of government. As they consume goods, they contribute to local and state sales taxes that would otherwise not be paid. When they drive, they yield additional gasoline taxes to repair the roads and infrastructure of the nations where they reside. 

Immigrants also inject new blood and new ideas, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed. A number of foreign students also come to be educated and most of them want to stay in America or their other new homelands afterwards. Unfortunately, America only allows a limited number of these students to remain. Some of them in the STEM fields may receive H-1B visas which gives them permission to work for a company for three to six years. But permanent status may be more difficult. This is foolish policy as America is educating and training highly specialized workers in vital fields and then returning them to their countries of origin, wasting valuable brain power. Not only do many of them function in critical fields, but a number of them patent new processes or as entrepreneurs form new companies that will employ American workers. U.S. laws are responsible for a brain drain of educated workers who would like to stay here, but cannot receive permission. 

For the most part, European nations and Japan have had homogeneous populations and cultures and it has been hard for some of them to accept new immigrants despite the aging of their workers and the rest of the populace, ignoring what it portends for their economies. But America has always been a nation of immigrants and its greatness was built on cultural diversity and new ideas. Because of the cost and the waste of resources it would entail, it is foolish to even consider deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants. Ways must be found to provide them with legal status and then a path to citizenship after an extended period of time, with payment of fees, ability to speak English, and an understanding of our history and laws. For foreign students and those on H-1B visas, a more rapid attainment of permanent status and a path to citizenship must be legislated. 

America’s demographic make-up is changing and the transformation is inevitable. Opponents of immigration reform may have their fingers in the dike for the moment, but the tide will overwhelm them at some point. All countries and their citizens should recognize the benefits of immigration and welcome the new residents who are going to help their economies and make their nations stronger and more resilient.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Image by Shutterstock

RINOs

            Robert A. Levine   10-7-15 

RINOs stand for Republicans In Name Only and is currently used as a pejorative term by extreme right-wing conservatives describing other Republicans whom they do not consider conservative enough. The sobriquet has probably been in use for the past century but has only gained in popularity during the last two to three decades as the conservative wing of the GOP has gained in strength. In some ways, this has been emblematic of a civil war raging within the Republican Party which the arch conservatives have been winning. 

The GOP (Grand Old Party) has not always been this way. It was once a conglomerate of moderate New Englanders, small and large businessmen, laborers (who liked their tariff policies) and Midwestern farmers. Though fiscally conservative, many party members were socially liberal or moderate on many issues. After all, it was the Republicans under Lincoln who freed the slaves and supported voting rights and civil rights for African-Americans. However, Nixon’s Southern strategy changed the political ballgame, attracting Southern whites as the party’s base while losing many of its New Englanders and other social moderates. 

In 1989, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Lee Atwater, suggested that the Republicans needed to be a “big tent” party encompassing voters with various views on social issues if they wanted to be a majority party. He was really focusing on abortion which was and is so politically divisive. He might as well have also put immigration policy as one of the issues where Republicans agreed to disagree, as that has become an increasingly explosive matter of contention over the years. Of course, the right to life plank has remained in the GOP platform and is part of the litmus test for Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican presidents. And opposition to immigration reform is on the lips of every Republican presidential nominee. 

Instead of a “big tent” party, the Republicans have moved more and more to the right, with Southern and Texas conservatives now dominating the party and denigrating any officials who are not conservative enough on fiscal or social issues. The resignation of John Boehner as Speaker of the House, an ardent conservative who was willing to compromise to allow the government to function, is symptomatic of the disease that has infected the Republican Party.

 They are willing to shut down the government and damage the economy if it satisfies their goals of totally free market capitalism with smaller government and no social safety net. The refusal to renew the Export-Import Bank to help American businesses compete in the world is just one factor indicative of Republican short sightedness. Trying to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood is another. 

Unfortunately for the Party, the Republican conservatives do not want a “big tent” and in fact do not even want a “little tent.” They only want die-hard conservatives like themselves as party members. Everyone who might be considered a RINO and does not conform to their definition of what a Republican should be and what policies he or she should support, should be excluded from the Party. This means that over time, the Party will be disregarded by the majority of Americans who will perceive the Republicans as a vestigial remnant of a world that once was. (In 2012, though more Republicans than Democrats were elected to the House, more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans in House elections. The GOP won because of gerrymandered safe districts.) 

Americans want Social Security and Medicare. Citizens want compromise from their politicians and don’t want government shutdowns. American businesses want the Export-Import Bank to compete with the rest of the world. Moderates and liberals compose the majority of the country, not conservatives (though conservatives and moderates would also be a majority). If conservatives want to gain the presidency and remain in control of the Senate, they will have to let citizens with other ideas (RINOs) into the Republican Party. Gerrymandering may allow them to dominate the House for the time being, but it will not give them the Senate and the presidency. And coming demographic changes will make it even more difficult for conservatives to win elections. They better open their eyes (and their minds).

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Image by Shutterstock