Can NATO Exist Without the United States?

Can NATO Exist Without the U.S.?

                        Robert A. Levine   9-11-24

With the U.S. presidential election in two months, and Trump and Harris essentially tied, the possibility of Trump being elected must be considered realistic by Europeans as well as Americans. Aside from trade issues that might arise with Trump as president, the main problem for Europe will be its defense. Trump has already said he does not like foreign alliances and has threatened to take the U.S. out of NATO. With the NATO pact that includes the U.S. and Canada being the backbone of European defense, the question arises whether NATO could survive without the U.S. Two thirds of defense spending by NATO nations is by the United States. The most advanced weapons systems, both offensive and defensive are produced by the United States. The largest military forces are by the United States. The nuclear umbrella that acts as a deterrent against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is by the United States. While the UK and France have nuclear weapons, they cannot compare with those of the U.S., Russia and China, and it is questionable whether they could act as a deterrent against an aggressive Russia.

Trump has already declared that he admires Putin and that they have a bond. He has said that he could quickly end the war between Russia and Ukraine, likely by forcing Ukraine to give in to Putin’s demands. Putin has made Russia into an expansive power similar to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Besides taking over Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of the main body of Ukraine, Putin has also been active in Georgia, Moldavia, Syria, and parts of Africa. What would NATO do if he decided to invade the Baltic States which are members of NATO, but which Putin considers as part of Russia. NATO is obligated to come to the defense of any of its member states if they are invaded, but would the remaining nations do that if the United States was not a member? Trump pushed a number of NATO states to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of GDP, by threatening not to aid any state that was below that threshold, and most of them have complied. The U.S. spends over 3.5 percent of GDP on weapons and defense.

If the United States exited NATO, it is likely the organization would be seen as a paper tiger without the power or will to defend its smaller members. It would certainly leave Russia free to swallow up the Baltic states and threaten Poland and Romania. American power in NATO is necessary to act as a deterrent to Putin and an expansionist Russia. Without the United States, NATO could fall apart, as the leadership role has been assumed by America since the organization’s inception. No other nation is capable of assuming that role.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or your local bookstore

Can NATO Exist Without the United States?

Can NATO Exist Without the U.S.?

                        Robert A. Levine   9-11-24

With the U.S. presidential election in two months, and Trump and Harris essentially tied, the possibility of Trump being elected must be considered realistic by Europeans as well as Americans. Aside from trade issues that might arise with Trump as president, the main problem for Europe will be its defense. Trump has already said he does not like foreign alliances and has threatened to take the U.S. out of NATO. With the NATO pact that includes the U.S. and Canada being the backbone of European defense, the question arises whether NATO could survive without the U.S. Two thirds of defense spending by NATO nations is by the United States. The most advanced weapons systems, both offensive and defensive are produced by the United States. The largest military forces are by the United States. The nuclear umbrella that acts as a deterrent against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is by the United States. While the UK and France have nuclear weapons, they cannot compare with those of the U.S., Russia and China, and it is questionable whether they could act as a deterrent against an aggressive Russia.

Trump has already declared that he admires Putin and that they have a bond. He has said that he could quickly end the war between Russia and Ukraine, likely by forcing Ukraine to give in to Putin’s demands. Putin has made Russia into an expansive power similar to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Besides taking over Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of the main body of Ukraine, Putin has also been active in Georgia, Moldavia, Syria, and parts of Africa. What would NATO do if he decided to invade the Baltic States which are members of NATO, but which Putin considers as part of Russia. NATO is obligated to come to the defense of any of its member states if they are invaded, but would the remaining nations do that if the United States was not a member? Trump pushed a number of NATO states to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of GDP, by threatening not to aid any state that was below that threshold, and most of them have complied. The U.S. spends over 3.5 percent of GDP on weapons and defense.

If the United States exited NATO, it is likely the organization would be seen as a paper tiger without the power or will to defend its smaller members. It would certainly leave Russia free to swallow up the Baltic states and threaten Poland and Romania. American power in NATO is necessary to act as a deterrent to Putin and an expansionist Russia. Without the United States, NATO could fall apart, as the leadership role has been assumed by America since the organization’s inception. No other nation is capable of assuming that role.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or your local bookstore

America's Growing Deficit

America’s Growing  Knowledge Deficit

            Robert A. Levine    8-21-24

When people generally think of a deficit, they are usually considering a business or a nation’s financial status. And it is true that the United States has been accumulating deficits and now has a huge national debt because the government spends more than it takes in with taxes. But the deficit I’m concerned about is not financial, but the deficit in knowledge and information that is occurring in the United States compared to the rest of the world. A recent article in the journal Foreign Affairs by Amy Zegart spoke to this problem and how it will affect America in the future. Besides placing America at a disadvantage relative to most of the world, it is sad in itself that America’s educational system is failing to educate our youngsters adequately. We may think that Silicon Valley and our technology are the best on the planet, but where are new scientific discoveries and advances in technology going to come from when our students are doing so poorly.

One of the reasons is that schools and universities are receiving less financing from state and federal sources that may be strapped for funding and see education as a lower priority than spending in other areas. Teachers are often not paid well and may not be as well prepared to teach in this era of technological advancement. Companies may not be spending as much on research and development as in the past. But whatever deficiencies are present in our institutions, it still comes down to not having students who want to learn and are actively seeking knowledge. It is true that there are many more distractions now for our young people than were present in the past, when our grade schools and universities were among the best in the world and our students among the most proficient. Now they have online games that demand their attention and social media that can keep them wasting hours at a time, and streaming shows that keep them occupied. There are also escapes from schoolwork with alcohol and drugs for some high school and college students.

Covid exacerbated the educational deficits present in our nation, but other nations also dealt with Covid. The statistics that reveal the standing of our students compared to the rest of the world are disheartening and it is incumbent upon our governments at every level to urgently address these deficiencies or America will no longer be a world power. Math and reading scores among American 13-year-olds were the lowest in decades last year. “Half of U.S. students could not meet their state’s proficiency requirements. And scores on the ACT declined for the sixth year in a row, with 70 percent of high school seniors not meeting college readiness benchmarks in math and 43 percent not meeting college readiness benchmarks in anything.”

Yet while American students are lagging behind, those in other nations are advancing rapidly. Tests of math proficiency of 15-year-olds globally in 2022 revealed that U.S. students ranked 34^th in average math proficiency in back of Slovenia and Vietnam. Ability in science and reading were better than math for U.S. students, but still behind a host of other nations. Only 7 percent of U.S. teenagers ranked at the highest level of math proficiency compared with 12 percent in Canada and 34 percent in South Korea.

International students are receiving an increasing number of doctorates from American universities in engineering, math and science, with the percentages of American students dropping. The largest number of foreign students (27 percent) come from China. The foreign students who remain in the United States afterwards contribute to our innovation and technology, but many of them are forced to leave by our foolish immigration policies. Unless America focuses on improving education markedly at every level, funds more basic research, and corrects our immigration regulations to allow people whom we have educated to stay in the U.S. and play roles in our economy, we are destined to become a second-rate power in the future.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and at your bookstore

The Eternal Carnival Barker

The Eternal Carnival Barker

            Robert A. Levine    8-24

Many Americans wonder about the continued appeal of Donald Trump to a large segment of the American public, particularly residents of rural areas. However, when you think about it, this con artist fits into a long tradition of hucksters who have preyed on Americans living in rural areas and small cities where regular entertainment has been limited. I’m talking about carnivals and the carnival barkers. Their arrival in rural towns was anticipated with glee, predominantly in the 19^th century but has continued to some degree to the present. Donald Trump is a perfect example of this role as a huckster, who would lie and exaggerate to get people to pay for carnival tickets or to buy objects from the carnival booths. He’s a figure well recognized by Americans outside of urban areas and that familiarity has made rural residents accept him more readily than city dwellers as a source of entertainment, the lies and exaggerations as part of his spiel.

“Hey ya, hey ya. Step right up and get your tickets for one of the best and most unusual shows ever in your county. See a one-legged tight-rope walker swallow swords while a hundred feet in the air. See Miss Betty Buxom perform her special dance revealing parts of her you wouldn’t believe. See a grizzly bear eating honey out of a beautiful girl’s hand. See a strongman lift a platform with his teeth with twenty people jumping upon it. And that’s only the beginning. We have forty other acts that will amaze you and have you coming back to see more. Our Trumpy-Dumpy Carnival show has been reviewed by the New York Times and Washington Post with four star ratings. They’ve written that they’ve never seen a show like ours. And you have to see it to believe it. We’ve had larger crowds than any other carnival or circus.

We’ve played in arenas all over the world: to sell out crowds in London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow, always receiving rave reviews. Now, for the special price of five dollars, you can see the spectacular show that has dazzled the entire world. Can you believe it? Only five dollars. Also, along with your ticket you get premium health care for a year, with physicians who have all been trained at the Mayo Clinic. You also get free prescription drugs as needed. Your children will get free day care and your police force will get an infusion of one thousand additional cops. This is all for five dollars. You have my word on this. Can you believe it. Step right up and step right in. Just watch where you walk so you don’t step in any horseshit.  The Trumpy-Dumpy Carnival Show right here in your hometown.

And for an extra hundred dollars a month, you can get a free college education through our organization, with all teachers from Harvard and Stamford. I must also say that we have many special bargains at our booths inside that you can purchase before the show goes on. These are so special that I must keep them secret before you see them to prevent a stampede and people being injured. But step right up and get your chance. It’s a once in a lifetime experience.”

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble or your local bookstore

The Eternal Carnival Barker

            Robert A. Levine    8-24

Many Americans wonder about the continued appeal of Donald Trump to a large segment of the American public, particularly residents of rural areas. However, when you think about it, this con artist fits into a long tradition of hucksters who have preyed on Americans living in rural areas and small cities where regular entertainment has been limited. I’m talking about carnivals and the carnival barkers. Their arrival in rural towns was anticipated with glee, predominantly in the 19^th century but has continued to some degree to the present. Donald Trump is a perfect example of this role as a huckster, who would lie and exaggerate to get people to pay for carnival tickets or to buy objects from the carnival booths. He’s a figure well recognized by Americans outside of urban areas and that familiarity has made rural residents accept him more readily than city dwellers as a source of entertainment, the lies and exaggerations as part of his spiel.

“Hey ya, hey ya. Step right up and get your tickets for one of the best and most unusual shows ever in your county. See a one-legged tight-rope walker swallow swords while a hundred feet in the air. See Miss Betty Buxom perform her special dance revealing parts of her you wouldn’t believe. See a grizzly bear eating honey out of a beautiful girl’s hand. See a strongman lift a platform with his teeth with twenty people jumping upon it. And that’s only the beginning. We have forty other acts that will amaze you and have you coming back to see more. Our Trumpy-Dumpy Carnival show has been reviewed by the New York Times and Washington Post with four star ratings. They’ve written that they’ve never seen a show like ours. And you have to see it to believe it. We’ve had larger crowds than any other carnival or circus.

We’ve played in arenas all over the world: to sell out crowds in London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow, always receiving rave reviews. Now, for the special price of five dollars, you can see the spectacular show that has dazzled the entire world. Can you believe it? Only five dollars. Also, along with your ticket you get premium health care for a year, with physicians who have all been trained at the Mayo Clinic. You also get free prescription drugs as needed. Your children will get free day care and your police force will get an infusion of one thousand additional cops. This is all for five dollars. You have my word on this. Can you believe it. Step right up and step right in. Just watch where you walk so you don’t step in any horseshit.  The Trumpy-Dumpy Carnival Show right here in your hometown.

And for an extra hundred dollars a month, you can get a free college education through our organization, with all teachers from Harvard and Stamford. I must also say that we have many special bargains at our booths inside that you can purchase before the show goes on. These are so special that I must keep them secret before you see them to prevent a stampede and people being injured. But step right up and get your chance. It’s a once in a lifetime experience.”

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon, Barnes and Noble or your local bookstore

Will A Trump-Harris Debate Matter?

A Trump-Harris debate would make a difference if it occurred in a neutral environment, without an audience, and with rules negotiated between the Trump and Harris teams. The debate scheduled on September 10 on ABC is longer on tap because Trump backed out. Trump wants the debate moderated by Fox with an audience present. Fox would not be a neutral environment. If Trump is unhappy with ABC, the two contestants can choose NBC or CBS, both mainstream outlets and considered neutral. Trump and Harris could each choose one of the two moderators. The debate should be done without an audience whose reactions could influence the nationwide viewers. When each candidate’s allotted time to answer a question is expended, the moderators should be able to shut off their mics. It would also be preferable to have comments by the two candidates’ fact-checked during the debate, but Trump would certainly never agree to that.

If a debate can be arranged, it would undoubtedly draw a massive television audience. Harris is not as well known by Americans as Trump and it would give them both great exposure. Also, many Americans want to see how Harris would handle Trump and vice-versa, and this would make riveting political entertainment. Harris has said that she will show up at the ABC debate scheduled on September 10 whether or not Trump agrees and appears. It seems unlikely that Trump will allow Harris to have all that airtime for herself. After the ABC debate, the two candidates can decide whether they want additional debates to take place. Harris is really in the driver’s seat in terms of determining when and how and if the debates will occur.

Harris’ spokesperson has said that she might be amenable to further debates if Trump meets his commitment to the September 10 encounter on ABC. Trump wants a live audience in their debate because he likes speaking before a crowd and feeds off their reactions. Harris would be foolish to allow Trump to dictate the terms of a debate when one has already been scheduled on ABC with previous agreement by both campaigns. And to allow two Fox moderators would also be a mistake.

Harris appears to be riding the crest of a wave of enthusiasm about her candidacy and picking the right VP candidate and handling the debate question right are important to continuing the positive vibes that surround her. If Harris’s poll numbers keep rising, Trump may feel that he has no choice other than to debate her, no matter what the terms may be. On the other hand, Trump may be afraid that Harris’ ability to think on her feet may throw him off balance and make him look foolish, which is certainly possible.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter at Amazon, Barnes and Noble or your local bookstore

 

Private Equity and Health Care

Health care in the United States was the world’s most expensive even before private equity became involved. Now it’s even more expensive and the quality of care has declined. When private equity enters any sphere of business activity, it’s a given that services and products will be impacted negatively. After all, private equity is a format for wealthy individuals to make more money in new businesses on the backs of workers and consumers. It’s true for health care just as it is for other private equity investments.

There were only 24 private equity firms in the United States in 1980, but their investments have proven to be so successful that the number of private equity firms has soared. About 5000 private equity firms controlling approximately 18,000 companies were noted in 2022 and continued growth can be expected. There is not strict monitoring and regulation by government entities, allowing private equity firms to literally strip companies of whatever value they had.

Initially, private equity firms would buy firms that were financially troubled or borderline. They would then pay themselves a hefty fee to manage these firms and make them appear solvent again. Cutting workers and services were ways to curb spending and make financial spreadsheets look better. Usually, they would accrue debt to pay their management fees and temporarily enhance the company. Then when the time was right, they would sell the firm to other investors at a significant profit, leaving a shell of a company that was buried in debt. But the private equity company did well financially.

For a number of years now, they have used this format to buy up companies involved in health care, particularly nursing homes. There is a manifest conflict of interest between private equity firms whose primary goal is to make money for their investors and health care facilities whose aim is to care for patients and provide them with the best services possible. Doing what is best for patients entails having more than adequate personnel on duty around the clock. In addition, facilities must have the best technology available for medical testing and be able to provide the most effective medications to treat various conditions, even if the meds are expensive.

Nursing homes care mainly for elderly patients, many of them demented and with multiple medical conditions. Because the patients are so fragile and sick and often not capable of lucid complaints, the owners of many nursing homes feel they can get away with stinting on adequate care for them. Personnel may often be cut to a bare minimum at some of these units, appropriate testing not done, nor expensive medications given. And when the Covid-19 pandemic hit, private equity nursing homes were unprepared for the influx of new patients. Mortality in private equity nursing homes has been shown to be over 10 percent higher than in other nursing homes.

Aside from nursing homes, private equity has also been buying urgent care centers, hospital emergency rooms, radiology departments and ICUs. The private equity firms make money the same way they do with nursing homes and other investments. They cut staff, including doctors, nurses, aides and so forth, get patients out quickly, and don’t give expensive medications. For profit entities like private equity should have no roles to play in the delivery of health care in any type of unit. Health care decisions should be made on the basis of necessity, not to generate or save money.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter

Give It Up, Joe

Give It Up, Joe

            Robert A. Levine    July 2, 2024

There comes a time when you must know, or your family and friends tell you, that you’re on a downhill slope and no longer should play a political role if you’re a politician. It could be illness, age, cognitive decline, or merely lack of interest. But you longer have the power to focus on the problems of the nation or your constituents. Or maybe it’s just difficulty in communicating well, so the public loses confidence in your abilities. It’s not only true in politics but in any leadership roles, in business, the military, education, and so forth. But when you have an important position in the government and the nation is watching, your demeanor and cognitive function is even more significant. For the country to run well, the public must believe in your intelligence and abilities.

Unfortunately, President Biden’s family and friends have been unwilling to tell him that it’s time for him to throw in the towel; that he no longer has the mental sharpness and physical attributes to continue as president for another term. His close staff and family have been keeping him in a protective shell, trying to build up his confidence so he will continue his quest for a second term. However, Biden’s performance in the recent debate means that Donald Trump is a prohibitive favorite to win the election if Biden stays in the race, to the detriment of the nation and of the Democratic Party.

If a person in a leadership role is unaware that he is not functioning maximally, it is up to those close to him or her to alert that person about his or her deficiencies. A leader must know about his or her performance. Biden’s family and close associates have not been straight with him. His expert team should be telling him to drop out of the race instead of bolstering his ego and affirming that he is doing well. Constant praise of his efforts gives him a false sense of security about his efforts on the campaign trail. For the good of the nation, Biden must know the truth no matter how much pain it causes.

The New York Times editorial board and a horde of journalists have urged Joe to drop out of the race after his dismal performance during the debate. Major donors are questioning whether it is worthwhile supporting him financially. Democratic politicians are publicly supporting him and privately lamenting his candidacy. It wasn’t just one bad night that has raised questions about Biden. Physically, it appears as if he has some neurologic impairment, with a lack of facial expression, soft voice, stiff gait. Some of these signs are suggestive of possible Parkinson’s disease or one of its variants. He did well in the State of the Union address and in some campaign speeches when he is able to read from a teleprompter. But he has much more difficulty when he must answer questions spontaneously. That’s why he and his staff are reluctant to have him do press conferences or one on one interviews.

During the debate, Trump lied constantly and gave false information but was not taken to task by Biden or the moderators. Not only domestically, but internationally, allies and supporters were dismayed by Biden’s performance. Seeming lethargic, he was not a good representative of American strength and vitality. Whether he is and will be able to handle the duties of the presidency from a cognitive standpoint is unimportant. Perception matters in the role of president, and he appeared unable to do the job. For the good of the nation, he must drop out of the presidential race and leave the choice to an open Democratic Convention. Give it up, Joe. Give it up!

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

 Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

                                               Robert A. Levine  June 11, 2024

The Federal Election Commission has generally been a do-nothing agency composed of three Republicans and three Democrats. Whenever an issue that could reform the election process comes before the Commission, it is inevitably turned down, with the three Republicans and three Democrats voting in opposite ways. Republicans on the Commission and Republican politicians want freedom to spend unlimited sums on elections without any significant restrictions. They are backed by many billionaires and wealthy Americans who are willing to fund them. However, there are restrictions as to how much individuals can donate directly to politicians running for office. Thus, to give large sums of money to support candidates, they have to donate to superPACs and other organizations that supposedly cannot coordinate their efforts with the candidates. However, it has been obvious to all observers that this is being done surreptitiously.

Since the Citizens United vs FEC decision by the Supreme Court in 2010, limits on campaign spending have essentially been blocked. The floodgates have been opened to billions of dollars, providing wealthy Americans with undue influence over the political system.  In addition, foreign and domestic corporations, unions, and foreign governments have found ways to channel money into the system in order to try and sway the outcomes of political campaigns. The Supreme Court equated money with free speech and viewed corporations as persons, indicating that they had First Amendment rights. Citizens United also allowed anonymous contributions of dark money to be given to SuperPacs, so that other citizens do not know who is providing support to candidates. Surveys of American citizens have shown that an overwhelming majority is against unlimited anonymous funding of political campaigns, but has not moved the courts or the politicians.

The Federal Election Commission has been dysfunctional for more than a decade, given the equal number of Democrats and Republicans. However, this has recently changed with one Democrat, Dara Lindenbaum, voting with the three Republicans on the Commission. With this group voting together, the minor restrictions on how politicians, political parties, and SuperPacs raise and spend money have been overturned. Reformers who have wanted funding of political campaigns to be further restricted are dismayed, with conservatives elated. As if Citizens United were not enough, this new ruling allows SuperPacs and candidates campaigns to work together and coordinate their efforts in advertising and door to door canvassing.

The only way that a reasonable system of campaign financing can be passed is through a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United. And the Federal Election Commission must have members who want fairness in the electoral process and not to have our government determined by which political party has the wealthiest donors and can raise the most money. Our system has turned into an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

 Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

                                               Robert A. Levine  June 11, 2024

The Federal Election Commission has generally been a do-nothing agency composed of three Republicans and three Democrats. Whenever an issue that could reform the election process comes before the Commission, it is inevitably turned down, with the three Republicans and three Democrats voting in opposite ways. Republicans on the Commission and Republican politicians want freedom to spend unlimited sums on elections without any significant restrictions. They are backed by many billionaires and wealthy Americans who are willing to fund them. However, there are restrictions as to how much individuals can donate directly to politicians running for office. Thus, to give large sums of money to support candidates, they have to donate to superPACs and other organizations that supposedly cannot coordinate their efforts with the candidates. However, it has been obvious to all observers that this is being done surreptitiously.

Since the Citizens United vs FEC decision by the Supreme Court in 2010, limits on campaign spending have essentially been blocked. The floodgates have been opened to billions of dollars, providing wealthy Americans with undue influence over the political system.  In addition, foreign and domestic corporations, unions, and foreign governments have found ways to channel money into the system in order to try and sway the outcomes of political campaigns. The Supreme Court equated money with free speech and viewed corporations as persons, indicating that they had First Amendment rights. Citizens United also allowed anonymous contributions of dark money to be given to SuperPacs, so that other citizens do not know who is providing support to candidates. Surveys of American citizens have shown that an overwhelming majority is against unlimited anonymous funding of political campaigns, but has not moved the courts or the politicians.

The Federal Election Commission has been dysfunctional for more than a decade, given the equal number of Democrats and Republicans. However, this has recently changed with one Democrat, Dara Lindenbaum, voting with the three Republicans on the Commission. With this group voting together, the minor restrictions on how politicians, political parties, and SuperPacs raise and spend money have been overturned. Reformers who have wanted funding of political campaigns to be further restricted are dismayed, with conservatives elated. As if Citizens United were not enough, this new ruling allows SuperPacs and candidates campaigns to work together and coordinate their efforts in advertising and door to door canvassing.

The only way that a reasonable system of campaign financing can be passed is through a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United. And the Federal Election Commission must have members who want fairness in the electoral process and not to have our government determined by which political party has the wealthiest donors and can raise the most money. Our system has turned into an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble