VA Scandal: The Stain on America's Soul

After major scandals shuddered the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Obama Administration pledged to improve health care for America's military men and women.  More than two years have passed and nothing has changed, except the media and politicians have developed amnesia.

The shame of dozens of retired military men and women dying while they waited for treatment should have awakened the government to the urgency of the situation.  Instead, the plodding VA bureaucracy has shuffled top administrators, but done little else to address the shoddy treatment.

For those with short memories, the Department of Veterans Affairs was jolted in 2014 when a congressional investigation uncovered malfeasance at the Phoenix VA Hospital.  It found at least 40 cases where the wait times "contributed to the deaths" of military people. 

The actual number of deaths remains in dispute.  Some outsiders believe the number may be closer to 83.  The outcry prompted the VA's chief watchdog to launch an investigation.  The probe found wait time problems at 51 of the 73 VA hospitals that were reviewed by investigators. 

After those findings were made public, there was a universal cry for change.  Instead of a sweeping housecleaning, the VA brushed the scandal under the rug. Even worse, soulless executives rewarded themselves with $3.3 million in bonuses in 2015 instead of lopping off the heads of the guilty.

An independent review of the Veterans Affairs' health care, released in September of 2015, found a "significant leadership crisis" at the agency and called for a complete overhaul of the system.  The report's collaborators included Rand Corp., McKinsey Company and the Institute of Medicine. 

Nowhere is the management crisis more evident than at the beleaguered Phoenix VA Hospital.  It is now operating under its seventh director in the past three years.  The last head of the giant VA department was Bob McDonald, an Obama appointee who was a retired consumer product executive.

Now President Trump has rattled the calcified culture at the department with the nomination of David Shulkin, a hospital chief executive with private sector experience in health care. Shulkin, unanimously approved by the Senate, becomes the first non-veteran to lead the VA in 86 years. 

Most of the previous VA department heads were plucked from the military.  However, they had no experience in running a behemoth medical organization.  Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the U.S. with 1,233 facilities, including 168 medical centers.

Nearly nine million veterans were served last year, according to the department.  The VA not only offers health care, but also provides counseling, operates community living centers, distributes financial benefits and oversees 128 national cemeteries. 

The job requires a gargantuan workforce of 325,935, earning the VA the title of the largest non-military department in the massive federal government.  This sprawling bureaucracy, founded in 1930, has grown too unwieldy and unresponsive to serving veterans.  It must be streamlined.    

The new VA chief needs to carve up the department, creating a new stand-alone agency to deliver health care to veterans.  Under the current organizational structure, health care is just one cog in a bloated department.  It deserves its own chief executive, reporting directly to the president.   

Once the new agency is birthed, the top echelons of the organization need to be staffed with professionals with hospital and medical operational experience.  Too often in the past, the VA has hired veterans for jobs that should be occupied by those with health care credentials.

In Washington, the knee-jerk response to any crisis is to throw money at the problem instead of dealing with the underlying issues.  On cue, the Congress increased the department's budget for fiscal year 2017 to $182.3 billion.  That's a hike in discretionary spending of 4.9 percent from 2016.

Although money can buy new equipment for hospitals and fund increased hiring, it does not guarantee America's veterans will get better health care.  That's why one of the first steps of the new administrator should be to conduct a third-party assessment of the current performance.

The days of asking the VA to evaluate itself are over.  Civilian medical professionals need to do a thorough evaluation of the department's facilities, treatment and follow-up procedures, bench marked against the nation's best integrated medical facilities.   

As part of this process, new standards for care should be adopted.  Pay for employees and executives alike should be tied to meeting goals for timely, professional health care delivery.  If implemented correctly, this pay-for-performance package will shake-up the department's fossilized culture.    

America has turned its back on the brave men and women who served in the nation's armed forces for too long.  The country must never again accept any excuses for shabby treatment of veterans. America's veterans deserve nothing less than the best health care the country has to offer.     

Exposing Silicon Valley's Dirty Little Secret

No group has howled louder about President Trump's executive order on refugee vetting than the elitist eggheads in Silicon Valley.  Their uproar has earned them lavish media praise as compassionate humanitarians. But there is nothing altruistic about their support for open borders.

Profits not patriotism motivates these honchos of high-tech who are exploiting the nation's immigration system to hire thousands of foreign workers to replace higher-paid Americans who toil in the bowels of their cash-flush firms.  

These businesses take advantage of a little known program, called H-1B Visa.  Under this scheme, American firms can temporarily employ foreign nationals in select occupations for three years with the ability to extend the period to six years.  After that, workers return to their native country.

Current immigration law requires these foreign H-1B visa employees to hold a bachelor's degree or higher from an accredited university.  In addition, they must be hired for critical occupations in fields such as mathematics, biotechnology, science and computer engineering, to name a few.

In 2014 and 2015, the government issued 591,174 visas to foreign workers to immigrate to the United States. More than 60 percent of the individuals admitted under the visa program were computer programmers or were recruited in related fields.

The statistics cited above were culled from reports compiled by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security.  Although cumulative data is nonexistent, there are estimated 800,000 H-1B visa holders working in the country on any given day.

Among the top 100 companies sponsoring H-1B visa immigrants, Americans will discover the names of some of the country's premier firms, including Apple, Amazon, Intel, Qualcomm Technologies, IBM, Google, Microsoft and scores of Silicon Valley start-ups and stars.

These firms justify their hiring of foreign workers by claiming there aren't enough American workers with degrees in science, technology, math and engineering.  That's not true.  For instance, American colleges graduate twice as many students with degrees in those fields than there are available jobs.

In fact, a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think-tank, found more than one third of recent computer science graduates are not working in their chosen field because they are unable to find jobs. Yet Silicon Valley complains they cannot find enough highly-specialized workers.

The Department of Labor has the responsibility for ensuring these firms do not displace American employees with lower-paid foreign workers. Under Mr. Obama, the agency failed to address documented cases of abuse after wizards of high-tech pored millions of dollars into his campaign.

In one instance, Southern California Edison laid off about 400 information technology employees and replaced them with foreign workers from India with H-1B visas in 2015. The displaced workers' annual pay averaged $110,000, while the foreigners' compensation averaged $75,000.

Many other companies, including Disney, New York Life, Toys R Us and Eversource Energy, have used the same sleazy strategy.  More often than not, these firms not only offer lower wages to the H-1B workers, but they dole out reduced benefit packages.

American workers are beginning to fight back.  Fourteen former employees at Abbott Laboratories, a health care conglomerate, filed a federal suit last year claiming they were sent packing so their jobs could be appropriated by foreign workers with H-1B visas.

There would be more legal battles but often displaced workers are strong-armed by their former employers to sign an agreement not to file suit as a condition for receiving their severance pay.

Some firms are using subterfuge to dodge public criticism over hiring foreigners. For example, American companies outsource the hiring of foreign workers to Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, both India based companies with satellite offices in the United States.

Not surprisingly,  Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services are the top two H-1B employers in America. They recruit lower-paid professionals from India and other countries, obtain H-1B visas for the workers, then outsource the newly arrived foreigners to American firms.

This insidious practice, which robs Americans of jobs, needs to be halted immediately.  President Trump has promised to deal with the issue soon through executive action.  Given its importance to American workers, the president's initiative deserves bi-partisan support.

But, of course, it will never happen.  Silicon Valley and the other corporate abusers of the visa program are big donors to Democrats, who will obstruct any changes in the current scheme. American workers will be the big losers if they succeed in maintaining the status quo.

Refugee Hysteria: The Truth About Tump's Order

President's Trump executive order to protect the American people from terrorist attacks has been the subject of a disinformation campaign engineered by Democrats and their media co-conspirators.  As a result, many Americans have been brainwashed into believing the order is harsh and xenophobic.

The deliberately false propaganda blitzkrieg has described the executive order as a ban on Muslims, an attack on American values and the scapegoating of immigrants.  Not a single one of those labels is factual.  It makes you wonder if the opponents have even read the president's order.

In the rush to judgment, Democrats and the media have accused Mr. Trump of hanging out a shingle at U.S. borders that reads, "Americans Only."  That is among the kinder smears from these apostles of indoctrination.  Apparently, they not only are unintelligent, but have no knowledge of history.

America has been and will continue to be the world's top resettlement country for people living in repressive, terrorist-plagued nations. However, the explosion of refugees, particularly from worn torn Syria, has created a security nightmare for every potential resettlement country.

More than 4.1 million Syrians are looking for new homes, a human tragedy of biblical proportions that could have been prevented by the United States and its allies.  Dealing with the outfall will require an overhaul of the refugee procedural process of not only the U.S. but the entire world.   

Mr. Trump's executive order addresses this issue, directing a review of the refugee admissions program.  Included is a call for greater involvement by states and cities in the resettlement process, which should facilitate the placement of refugees.

To set the record straight, here are facts about Mr. Trump's action as well as actual data about the resettlement of refugees in America to counteract the media's lies: 

LIE: The Order Bans Muslims.  Untrue.  There is no reference to Muslims in the order.  It puts a temporary, 90-day halt to resettlement of refugees from seven countries, including Syria.  During the pause, the president has asked the national intelligence community to develop a uniform screening standard and procedure. However, Muslims from other countries such as Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population (202.9 million), may apply for refugee status.  Only refugees from the seven countries are impacted by the order.

LIE: The President Singled Out Muslim Countries.  The seven countries effected are Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.  These same nations were placed under travel restrictions by Mr. Obama, who signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act on December 18, 2015.  Under the law, travelers from these countries are no longer eligible to be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.  The stated reason for the move was to prevent travelers from those countries from coming to America "at the behest of violent extremist groups." Mr. Trump's order broadens the law to include increased scrutiny for refugees from these countries.

LIE: The Order Unduly Slows Refugees Entry. The system in place under former President Obama was tortoise like, too.  Currently, the normal vetting time for Syrian refugees is 18 to 24 months, according to the State Department.  After this process, the refugee must still pass a physical exam.  The United States has always employed a prolonged, deliberate process for refugees from foreign countries. Additional vetting may add a few months to the operation because of the difficulty in establishing each refugee's identity.  

LIE:  No Other President Has Issued A Refugee Freeze.  False.  The last six U.S. presidents have issued executive orders to block the entry of certain classes of immigrants.  The most recent example is President Obama who halted visa processing for Iraqi refugees in 2011 after two former Al Qaeda terrorists were found living as refugees in Kentucky. The temporary freeze lasted six months so the Obama Administration could reexamine the records of 58,000 Iraqis being considered for resettlement. The order caused hardship and heartbreak for families, but the media ignored it.    

LIE: It is un-American to limit refugees coming to the U.S.   Mr. Obama used his authority, just as other presidents did, to establish an annual ceiling on the number of refugees the United States would admit.  In 2012 and again in 2013, the former president lowered the number from 80,000 to 76,000 and then reduced it again to 70,000.  In the last year of George W. Bush's presidency, the refugee cap was 80,000 after it had climbed as high as 152,000.  In his order, Mr. Trump temporarily suspended the ceiling for refugees while vetting measures are developed.  Refugee limits have always been a part of U.S. policy.  

LIE: Mr. Trump Falsely Claims Christian Refugees Have Been Treated Unfairly.  Based on the data, not media fabrication, President Trump's assertions are accurate.  The Obama Administration resettled more than 12,000 Syrian refugees last fiscal year; 99 percent of them were Muslim. Although Christians represent 10 percent of the Syrian population, only one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees who gained entry into the U.S. were Christians.

Once Americans know the facts they will grow weary of the choreographed protests, the media's fake stories and Democrat's crocodile tears. America still embraces the huddled masses.  However, polls show Americans want to be protected from terrorism.

Who can blame them after five terrorists attacks on American soil under Mr. Obama?    

Business & Politics: The 27-Cent Rule

American business managers and executives offer skills and perspectives often missing in the federal government.  However, many are discouraged from serving because they are forewarned they will face a dishonest political establishment and unprincipled media intent on destroying their reputation.

Respected, successful business women and men nominated for cabinet positions are subjected to venal nitpicking, loathsome character assassinations and the demonization of their former employers. That is their reward for having the audacity to volunteer to serve in Washington.

Democratic Party senators are the most notorious practitioners of the politics of personal destruction. Armed with unsubstantiated dossiers, they bully any business leader put forward as a cabinet nominee. Exhibit A is the hectoring of Steven Mnuchin, the nominee for Treasury secretary.

From the opening of the ongoing Senate hearings, it was clear Democrats had two problems with Mnuchin. First, he is a multi-millionaire.  Democrats loath wealthy business leaders, unless they are donors to their party.  Affluent Democrats are compassionate, while rich Republicans are greedy.

Secondly, Mnuchin had the misfortune of having careers in banking and hedge funds.  Ever since the financial collapse, Democrats have smeared anyone connected with Wall Street.  Yet the party collects millions in political donations from these Manhattan aristocrats.  Talk about hypocrisy.

During the hearings last week, Democrats pounced on what they considered an egregious example of the Treasury nominee's predatory business practices.  The charge involved a company called OneWest, which was a sub-prime mortgage lender once operated by Mnuchin.

Democrats attacked Mnuchin over the foreclosure on a Lakeland, Florida, homeowner who made a 27-cent payment error.  The incident was even more inflammatory because the homeowner was a 90-year old woman with a reverse mortgage.

Obviously, Democrats had tipped off the media in advance of the hearing.  Reporting on the alleged foreclosure was dripping with indignation.  "Bank Owned By Trump's Top Treasury Pick Foreclosed On A 90-year-Old Over 27-Cents," screamed headlines on The Huffington Post.  

The charge was repeated in numerous media, including CBS, CNN, the New York Daily News, Vanity Fair, Yahoo News and many others. Mnuchin's former firm was branded the 'foreclosure machine.' The nominee was chided for being 'ethically challenged', 'shady' and 'the ultimate Wall Street insider.'

The mud-slinging soiled Mnuchin's once pristine business image, while ruining his reputation and irreparably damaging his character.  

However, facts have now surfaced, exposing the Democrats' intentional use of false information to cripple the nominee's chances for confirmation. It turns out Mnuchin had nothing to do with the foreclosure on the elderly homeowner.  He had sold his stake in OneWest at the time of the incident.

An investigation shows that OneWest did file for foreclosure in November, 2014, but dropped the matter once it discovered the homeowner had bungled the paperwork.  Lost in all the fake news about the incident was the fact that OneWest had worked behind the scenes to help the homeowner.

In 2011, the mortgage firm found the homeowner was deficient in coverage for hazard insurance. OneWest advanced the woman a $1,883.30 line of credit to maintain coverage and satisfy the loan covenant. The elderly homeowner eventually paid off the loan, but only after four years.

After the clarification, there were no apologies from the media or Democrats, even after Mnuchin told Senators his bank had extended over 100,000 loan modifications to borrowers who had fallen behind on their payments.  They were not interested in the truth.  They wanted a scalp.

The experience of the Treasury nominee is a cautionary tale for any business leader who might be mulling a cabinet position.  You must be willing to sacrifice your good name on the altar of crass political partisanship.  That explains why many well-intentioned women and men demur.

The American people are the losers in this shoddy political gamesmanship.  Their government is robbed of the leadership and managerial skills business people have to offer.  In Washington, the insiders prefer academicians, cronies and political hacks who will do their bidding.    

Media and Democrats Buck Inaugural History

In the run up to the inauguration, the nation's legacy media unleashed a torrent of choreographed reporting designed to undermine the new administration before its first official day in office.  The goal was to fuel public hysteria, impugn the new president's reputation and invalidate the election.

The propaganda campaign, orchestrated by the Democratic Party, opened with the narrative that the Russians had hacked the election. The intended inference was Vladimir Putin directed an operation to change votes and corrupt voting machines in order to help Donald Trump win.

Of course, it was fake news.  The only credible charge was that the Russians hacked into the the Democratic National Committee's server, a far cry from stealing an election.  Whatever the Russians did, it had nothing to do with the drubbing of Hillary Clinton in the presidential contest.

On the heels of this canard, the media leaked a scurrilous report about a dossier on Mr. Trump secretly compiled by the Russians. Virtually every aspect of the baseless story was discredited, but that didn't stop the media cabal from recycling the bogus report for a week.

Days before the swearing in ceremony, the media dredged up polls showing that Donald Trump's public approval rating had dipped to 40 percent.  These polls, like those trumpeted during the election, were rigged to produce a desired outcome.

Rasmussen Reports, a Democratic polling organization, released its own data that found 52 percent of those surveyed had a positive opinion of the new president.  The difference was Rasmussen polled likely voters, rather than skewing the results by selecting only certain demographics.

Some Hollywood urchins seized on the manipulated polling data to suggest this was grounds to negate the election results and cancel the inauguration.  Democracy be damned. It was a display of mind-numbing ignorance, malicious arrogance and petty disregard for the American electorate.

The relentless media blitzkrieg featured daily updates on which entertainer had snubbed the inaugural, a litany designed to bully pro-Trump performers.  Then one-by-one petulant Democrats began announcing they would boycott the installation of the 45th president of the United States.

Even after it was announced that Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be on the platform with Mr. Trump, they refused to budge.  Ms. Clinton deserves special praise, as does 92-year former president Jimmy Carter, for ignoring the dark voices of partisan hatred.  

The classless display by the absent Democrats treated Americans to an ugly spectacle unlike any in our nation's proud history. The peaceful transfer of power, symbolized every four years by the inauguration, was mocked and dishonored.  Yet these malcontents saw themselves as principled.

Any American with a grain of knowledge about history understands the inauguration is not about the incoming president.  It is a unique symbol of how a democracy seamlessly shifts power after a presidential election often marked by contention and partisanship.  It is a unifying moment.

Since George Washington took the oath of office in 1789, it has been a sacred tradition for Americans to celebrate the inauguration, regardless of party affiliation or circumstances surrounding the election. No exceptions. But this time the losers wanted revenge at any cost for voters' rejection of their party.

For this historian, it is a reminder of the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.  Lincoln won a scant 40 percent of the popular vote, but waltzed to victory in the Electoral College by carrying the large Northern states. That sparked cries of foul from his three defeated opponents.

Within a month of the election, South Carolina seceded from the union. Six more states thumbed their noses at Lincoln and struck out on their own before the new president's inauguration.  The nation was in turmoil.  Under this cloud, Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4, 1861.

Even his arrival in the nation's capitol was cloaked in murkiness.  Amid rumors of an assassination plot, Lincoln boarded a special train and was spirited off in the middle of the night.  Fear gripped his entourage and he was guarded by a cadre of soldiers.

Although current historians consider Lincoln's first inaugural speech a stunning masterpiece, it was greeted with contempt in his day.  The Charleston Mercury excoriated the address, calling it insolent and brutal. The newspaper attacked the new government as a "mobocratic empire."

Likewise, the media characterized Mr. Trump's inauguration address as a "dark" speech, despite its vision of better days ahead for America.  His speech was a manifesto for returning government to the people, a populist theme that frightens the entrenched political establishment, including the media.

Mr. Trump's supporters can take heart in what happened after Lincoln's inauspicious start.  His legacy grew and today he is generally acknowledged as one of America's greatest presidents. Presidents are ultimately measured by what they achieve, not by the scandalous attacks of the media and partisans.

The tone for the next four years has been set by the rancorous inauguration theatrics. Democrats and their lapdog media, both stung by their loss of power, have made a pact to do whatever it takes to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

They don't give a damn if in the process their antics destroy America.

Obama's Legacy: Lost Opportunity

For a man who spent the last eight years fretting about his legacy, President Obama leaves office with a lackluster list of achievements that will tarnish his carefully nurtured image.  Even his crowning glory, the passage of the onerous health care reform bill, is in imminent danger of extinction.

In his long goodbye, the president has taken to the airwaves and the stump to pat himself on the back for economic recovery, climate change progress, improved foreign alliances, a nuclear deal with Iran and normalization of relations with Cuba.  He even brags about a scandal-free administration.

The president must reside in some alternative universe.

The facts show the U.S. economy has suffered through eight years of anemic growth.  Terrorism has spiked at home and around the world. Big city crime is soaring.  Fewer percentage of people are in the workforce than at any time in recent history.  More people are living below the poverty line.

The rest of the world is a boiling cauldron of unrest.  Syria is killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens.  Iran is seeding its brand of terror across the Middle East.  Russia annexed part of Ukraine while the world sat on its hands.  Terrorists attacks are the subject of daily headlines in Europe.

Apparently, the president also has a short memory.  His administration oversaw the biggest scandal in history when the Internal Revenue Service was used to throttle conservative organizations.  This egregious abuse of power went unpunished and largely ignored.

He departs the White House with a closet stacked with other skeletons. The Justice Department secretly obtained phone records of journalists. The administration falsely blamed a video for the attack on a U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.  The ATF supplied weapons to Mexican drug lords.

It makes you wonder about the president's definition of scandal.

But none of the aforementioned tops his most glaring failure.  Barrack Obama, the first African-American elected president, had an opportunity to write a new chapter in race relations.  He was the face of what was possible for every child of color in the United States.

Instead, the president wasted his good fortune.  His first foray into race relations set the tone for his tenure.  In 2009, he railed that police 'acted stupidly' in arresting a Harvard University black professor at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  He spoke before all the facts were known.

Mr. Obama tried to smooth over the incident by hosting a beer summit with the local police officer and the educator after an investigation proved law enforcement people acted reasonably.  This was to become a pattern throughout his eight years in the Oval Office.

He weighed in on the Trevon Martin shooting before the investigation was complete.  He blasted police in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting of a black man.  Mr. Obama lectured Americans on the legitimacy of the Black Lives Matter movement after the slaughter of five Dallas cops.

The president never let the facts stand in the way of jumping to conclusions about police brutality. As a result, 2016 saw a dramatic uptick in police shootings.  Perhaps, it is unfair to blame the president, but his incendiary rhetoric inflamed negative attitudes in the black community about the police.

During his presidency, the plight of African-Americans did not improve. Black homicides rose. African-American unemployment eclipsed all other ethnic groups.  Blacks have the highest rate of poverty.  High school drop out rates among blacks remain higher than whites.

A poll last year conducted by Pew Research Center found deep racial divisions in the country.  Nearly nine in ten blacks says the country needs to do more to help their race obtain equal rights.  Only eight percent think the country has achieved racial equality.

Mr. Obama's election as president was historic.  It should have been the tipping point for charting a new course for improved relations among the races.  The president choose instead to further divide the country and pit one group against the other.

An opportunity like this may never come again.  It is a sad postscript to a presidency that began with such high expectations and ended with lost opportunities for elevating the race discussion in America.

Self-Driving Cars: No Longer Science Fiction

Self-driving cars, piloted by computers and guided by GPS, were once considered a gee-whiz phenomenon with limited practical usage.  There were too many safety concerns for autonomous driving to ever be sanctioned.  Those issues are receding, paving the way for automated cars.

That represents a dramatic shift from just three years ago when the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) urged states to ban driverless-cars from their roads.  The agency has since softened its stance and test trials are underway today in four states and the District of Columbia.

Today the move toward autonomous driving vehicles seems irreversible. Ford's CEO Mark Fields predicted last year that his company planned to offer fully self-driving automobiles by 2021.  The vehicles will be manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals.

Other car makers are joining the stampede to debut self-driving cars and light vehicles.  Toyota, BMW, General Motors, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and, of course, all-electric car manufacturer Tesla have announced plans to produce and market vehicles which require no human involvement.

Not only traditional car manufacturers have answered the clarion call for automated driving. Tech titians Google and Apple are busy designing autos that are basically a computer on wheels. Many believe these new entrants may have a decided technological advantage over traditional car makers.

With this much momentum,  there is no longer any doubt that the future of human travel is self-driving vehicles.  Safety concerns remain and not all the tests have gone flawlessly.  However, the math is squarely on the side of removing humans from the driving equation.

First and foremost, more than 38,000 people die annually in road crashes.  An additional 2.35 million are injured and disabled.  Highway and road accidents cost the United States $230.6 billion per year, according to the Association for Safe International Road Travel.

Even if there are crashes involving driverless cars, the worst case scenarios forecast a precipitous drop in fatalities.  Almost all the accidents on American roads are caused by human error, safety experts agree. Distracted driving has become an epidemic, thanks to technology and cell phones.

Beyond safety, there are other numbers that argue for a future without human driven vehicles. Government and industry figures show the numbers of elderly and disabled are rising each year. Many get behind the wheel of a vehicle every day, endangering themselves and others.

Licensed drivers over the age of 65 have increased by 20 percent in the last decade.  And their numbers are growing.  By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be over the age of 65 and the majority will be driving, reports the American Automobile Association (AAA).

Beginning at age 75, drivers are increasingly involved in fatal crashes. They are 17-times more likely to die in auto accidents than 25-to-64-year-olds, the AAA reports.  These statistics often are cited by care givers and adult children to force seniors to give up their cars and their independence.

Disabled drivers face the same hazards as the elderly.  There are about 57 million disabled people living in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census.  Most report difficulty seeing, hearing and engaging their legs and arms.  Yet many still drive, thanks to laws that bar discrimination.

Wouldn't the roads be safer and people more empowered if the elderly and disabled could maintain their independence and still travel in cars? The answer is a resounding, "Yes."  Some worry that the result may be more cars on the nation's already cramped highways and streets.

Currently, the Bureau of Transportation counts 254 million passenger and light vehicles registered in the country.  But one of the advantages of autonomous driven cars is that the vehicles can navigate more efficiently through traffic than those operated by humans, decreasing bottlenecks.

Some forecasters predict the advent of driverless cars will actually reduce personal automobile ownership.  People will opt to use driverless services providers, such as Uber and Lyft, because the costs will be less than owning, insuring, parking, maintaining and fueling your own automobile.

Think about it.  Your grandchildren may never own or drive a car.

No doubt that today's driverless cars are not quite ready for prime time. There are still issues with technology that allows cars to constantly send and receive wireless signals from other vehicles.  But enough money and effort is being invested by large companies to overcome these obstacles.

There is a revolution over the horizon that will disrupt the automobile industry and change the nature of car ownership. This development will usher in the most significant transformation of transportation since the invention of the automobile.