A road trip to the Grand Canyon. A cruise to the Bahamas. A private jet to Africa for a safari. All sound mundane when compared to a boarding a beast of a rocket and roaring into space. However, it likely will set you back $52 million, a mere pittance for my many billionaire readers.
Serial entrepreneur Elon Musk, the electric car mogul, unveiled plans this year to launch a new Starship rocket into space in 2021 carrying a "small number" of passengers. It will likely go to the edge of space, but not to the moon. But what did you expect for $52 million? Free peanuts?
Another billionaire, Richard Branson, has launched Virgin Galactic, a firm in New Mexico dedicated to making commercial space flights a reality in the not too distant future. Branson has been more judicious than Musk, eschewing a launch date. Estimated fares are a bargain: $250,000 per person.
A handful of private citizens have already experienced the thrill of a space junket. Space Adventures brokered flights from 2001 to 2009 for seven tourists aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft that shuttled the passengers to the International Space Station, floating about 220 miles above Earth.
The published price for the voyage was between $200 and $250 million, although many paid less. Depending on your credit card limit, the price tag could easily be within your financial grasp. Think of posting a selfie on Instagram, your beaming face captured inside the space station. Priceless.
At this juncture, some of you are probably thinking: "Yeah, but I could fly Southwest Airlines to Witcha, Kansas, for a lot less." True. But when a friend asks where you vacationed, do you think a visit to Witcha will have the same cache as a space voyage? Don't think so. Think big.
Fancy you are at a neighborhood party. The smug nuclear scientist who lives next door drones on about new discoveries and nerdy things like subatomic particles. That's when you casually drop in the conversation: "I didn't see sub-whatever particles on my space trip." All eyes will shift to you.
You invite everyone over to your home. Every inch of wall space is festooned with photos of you in space. All those pictures of your smiling kids have been banished to the closet. Envious neighbors gawk at the photographs. You have displaced the nuclear scientist as the neighborhood celebrity.
I admit that I am entertaining the idea of taking out a fourth mortgage on my home to pay for a space vacation. My only concerns are that I am a nervous flyer and I am afraid of heights. But surely for $52 million stewardesses will hand out the anxiety drug Diazepam along with the pretzels.
The scariest moment will be when the rocket thunders off the launchpad, shuddering, trembling as it struggles to break the grasp of Earth's gravity. Passengers will experience a maximum of three times the force of gravity. Imagine being flattened against your seat, unable to move or sip Perrier.
Of course, I will need an aisle seat on the spacecraft for my frequent trips to the restroom. I refuse to use one of those gross devices inside a spacesuit. Yuck. For the price, there should be a nice facility onboard with scented towels and free combs. If I wanted to rough it, I could have gone camping.
Since it will be a long rocket ride, I am hoping there will be inflight entertainment. Movies such as "First Man," "Martian" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" designed to heighten our anticipation for the voyage. Surely Musk wouldn't dare show, "Apollo 13," a near space disaster for America.
No tiny little screens for the movies. This is costing a fortune so I am expecting a honking big screen 4K television at each seat. I would be like the old drive-in movies. A touch of the past on a vacation of the future. What could be better? I know. Popcorn. And Milk Duds.
Packing for the space vacation would be a snap. It is not like formal jackets will be required for dinner, like on those snooty ocean cruises. Wouldn't it be cool if Ralph Lauren designed the spacesuits? No tacky white paraphernalia. Fashion shouldn't have to be sacrificed in space.
And please, no ready-to-eat meals. Who eats canned food even on Earth? Hire a French chef to prepare gourmet dishes. I know a gas stove might be considered a fire hazard on a spacecraft. But a solar powered one would work just fine. Food allergies? Tough. It's space. You'll be fine.
At this point, I bet many of you are already daydreaming of contacting your travel agent. You are done with banal vacations. It will be worth it. And there is no coronavirus virus in space, so no worries about having to change your plans. Surely, that makes it worth $52 million.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Monday, February 17, 2020
Analysis of Democrat Presidential Race
Democrats worst nightmares might be coming to fruition. With Super Tuesday looming on March 3, frontrunner Bernie Sanders frightens the Democrat establishment because of his full-throated socialist agenda. Now there is speculation that Democrats may be hurtling toward a brokered convention.
Neither scenario bodes well for the Democratic Party's chances to reclaim the White House. After a disastrous start to the primary season with the Iowa caucus debacle, Democrats had to be shaking their heads wondering what else could go wrong. The answer is Senator Sanders heading the ticket.
After winning the popular vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders vaulted into lead on the strength of a stellar ground game. Sanders has no trouble recruiting young volunteers to staff his statewide campaign offices. The 78-year old also draws the largest and most enthusiastic crowds.
Many Democrat voters are not spooked by Sanders' endorsement of socialism. A 2019 Pew Research Study found nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats have a somewhat positive or very positive view of socialism. Republicans and GOP leaning independents are diametrically opposed: 84% against.
Money is usually a strong indicator of the staying power of a primary candidate. Just released Federal Election Commission figures underscore Sanders' appeal. He raised $107.9 million in the latest reporting period, far outdistancing his primary rivals. Sanders is not going away.
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a virtual unknown a year ago, surprised pollsters by nipping at the heels of Sanders in the first two contests. The Buttigieg campaign has steamrolled more well known opponents and has attracted better educated, upper income voters.
However, national polls show that among African-American Democrats only one percent back his candidacy. If those polls are accurate, it spells trouble for Mayor Pete. He will face tough sledding in upcoming primaries in which African-Americans are a larger share of Democrat voters.
In a national presidential match, a Democrat cannot win the Oval Office without high African-American voter turnout and a sizable margin over Mr. Trump That leaves the Democrat establishment in a quandary because Buttigieg, like Obama in 2008, is a needed fresh face.
Buttigieg is polished, articulate and media friendly. All assets Obama enjoyed in 2008. Buttigieg also raised $75 million in the latest quarter. He is the darling of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Both have shoveled millions of dollars into the Buttigieg campaign.
Rising political star Sen. Amy Klobuchar's stock is soaring after her third place finish in New Hampshire. She represents the moderate lane in the party race. Her strategy of a laser focus on the first two contests paid off. But her campaign may be derailed by lack of funds.
Among the top tier candidates, she raised the lowest amount of money, $28.7 million in the recent quarter. That was less than Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren and Biden. She and Buttigieg are competing for the same big donors, who prefer a progressive without the socialist baggage.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren's campaign is cratering. Although she raised $81.7 million, she has underperformed in the opening round. After the woeful New Hampshire showing, he has turned more strident. If she drops out, the chief beneficiary will be Sanders, who shares common views.
Former Vice President Joe Biden needs to throw a Hail Mary pass. His campaign is flagging and donors are beginning to have doubts about his chances. Biden is pinning his hopes for a jumpstart in Nevada and South Carolina primaries. The states appear to be friendlier territory for Biden.
However, the latest Quinnipiac Poll finds Biden's support among African-Americans is eroding in South Carolina. That does not bode well for a comeback. Plus his campaign is haunted by disappointing defeats. Voters often are influenced by early results when they go to the polls.
Biden entered the race with a huge advantage in name recognition and his past association with the Obama presidency. Neither have proven enough to woo the majority of Democrat voters who are looking for a populist candidate who will shake up Washington. He represents the status quo.
Biden also suffered collateral damage in the impeachment trial. Democrats aimed at Mr. Trump but struck Biden, whose son Hunter's affiliation with a corrupt Ukraine gas firm received glaring attention during the trial. The mainstream media tried a blackout of news coverage to protect Biden.
It failed because social media was ablaze with juicy conspiracy theories and catty comments about the Bidens. Although no Democrat will ever admit it, Biden's reputation was sullied. Clever Buttigieg defended Biden in a debate, which only called more attention to the Biden imbroglio.
When the inevitable happens, a Morning Consult Poll shows Sanders is the top second choice for Biden supporters with 27% claiming they would vote for the senator. Fully 35% of Warren voters indicate they will switch to Sanders. Assuming both drop out, Sanders will solidify his lead.
When former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg leaped into the race, there was early chatter about him claiming the middle ground and uniting the party. Recent revelations about Bloomberg's views on minorities and crime have all but crippled his opportunity to ride his billions to the nomination.
That isn't Bloomberg's only achilles heel. He is a billionaire in a candidate field that preaches disdain for the wealthy. He is a solid but uninspiring campaigner. Bloomberg lacks charisma that even money can't buy. He is anathema to the socialist wing of the party. Can he overcome his shortfalls?
But make no mistake about it. Bloomberg is the Democrat establishment candidate. His campaign has just recently unleashed ads attacking Sanders' supporters, a dubious tactic that could backfire. For all the fawning over Bloomberg, he has yet to prove he can win a single primary.
Super Tuesday represents the last remaining test for Sanders. Fourteen states will hold primaries, including delegate-rich Texas and California. A total of 796 delegates will be at stake. If Sanders emerges with the most delegates, his challengers will face daunting odds.
That leaves Democrats staring at the likelihood that Sanders will have bagged the most delegates prior to the convention in Milwaukee in June. The question is: Will he have enough delegates to anoint him the presumptive nominee before then? The prospect of a brokered convention portends.
If there is a brokered convention, where the frontrunner is short of securing the nomination, history suggests the eventual winner will be too bloodied to win. The most recent brokered convention occurred in 1984 when Walter Mondale eventually won the nomination and then lost in a landslide.
Party purists are jittery about embracing Sanders, who runs for office in his home state of Maine as an Independent eschewing the Democrat label. Knots of Democrat House representatives and senators openly worried about the down ballot effect of Sanders in a recent New York Times article.
All that said, Democrats are wary of denying Sanders the nomination. In 2016 after Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, his voters were dispirited by what they viewed as a rigged system against their candidate. As a result, most stayed home on election day.
Alienating Sanders and his base will create a chasm in the Democratic Party. If another candidate emerges as the nominee, there is a real threat his supporters will remain on the sidelines. This is Sanders' last shot at the presidency. A snub might compel him to run as a third party candidate.
The current Democratic Party dilemma may sound familiar to Republicans. Not so long ago in 2016 the GOP establishment was bonkers about the prospect of Trump at the top of the ticket. Although he drew the largest crowds, he wasn't conservative enough, a former Democrat and anti-establishment.
Grudgingly, old guard Republicans accepted the reality that he would be the nominee and abandoned efforts to sabotage his candidacy. The Democratic Party could learn a lesson from this. Denying Bernie Sanders the nomination through skulduggery will likely sink the Democrat ship.
Neither scenario bodes well for the Democratic Party's chances to reclaim the White House. After a disastrous start to the primary season with the Iowa caucus debacle, Democrats had to be shaking their heads wondering what else could go wrong. The answer is Senator Sanders heading the ticket.
After winning the popular vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders vaulted into lead on the strength of a stellar ground game. Sanders has no trouble recruiting young volunteers to staff his statewide campaign offices. The 78-year old also draws the largest and most enthusiastic crowds.
Many Democrat voters are not spooked by Sanders' endorsement of socialism. A 2019 Pew Research Study found nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats have a somewhat positive or very positive view of socialism. Republicans and GOP leaning independents are diametrically opposed: 84% against.
Money is usually a strong indicator of the staying power of a primary candidate. Just released Federal Election Commission figures underscore Sanders' appeal. He raised $107.9 million in the latest reporting period, far outdistancing his primary rivals. Sanders is not going away.
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a virtual unknown a year ago, surprised pollsters by nipping at the heels of Sanders in the first two contests. The Buttigieg campaign has steamrolled more well known opponents and has attracted better educated, upper income voters.
However, national polls show that among African-American Democrats only one percent back his candidacy. If those polls are accurate, it spells trouble for Mayor Pete. He will face tough sledding in upcoming primaries in which African-Americans are a larger share of Democrat voters.
In a national presidential match, a Democrat cannot win the Oval Office without high African-American voter turnout and a sizable margin over Mr. Trump That leaves the Democrat establishment in a quandary because Buttigieg, like Obama in 2008, is a needed fresh face.
Buttigieg is polished, articulate and media friendly. All assets Obama enjoyed in 2008. Buttigieg also raised $75 million in the latest quarter. He is the darling of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Both have shoveled millions of dollars into the Buttigieg campaign.
Rising political star Sen. Amy Klobuchar's stock is soaring after her third place finish in New Hampshire. She represents the moderate lane in the party race. Her strategy of a laser focus on the first two contests paid off. But her campaign may be derailed by lack of funds.
Among the top tier candidates, she raised the lowest amount of money, $28.7 million in the recent quarter. That was less than Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren and Biden. She and Buttigieg are competing for the same big donors, who prefer a progressive without the socialist baggage.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren's campaign is cratering. Although she raised $81.7 million, she has underperformed in the opening round. After the woeful New Hampshire showing, he has turned more strident. If she drops out, the chief beneficiary will be Sanders, who shares common views.
Former Vice President Joe Biden needs to throw a Hail Mary pass. His campaign is flagging and donors are beginning to have doubts about his chances. Biden is pinning his hopes for a jumpstart in Nevada and South Carolina primaries. The states appear to be friendlier territory for Biden.
However, the latest Quinnipiac Poll finds Biden's support among African-Americans is eroding in South Carolina. That does not bode well for a comeback. Plus his campaign is haunted by disappointing defeats. Voters often are influenced by early results when they go to the polls.
Biden entered the race with a huge advantage in name recognition and his past association with the Obama presidency. Neither have proven enough to woo the majority of Democrat voters who are looking for a populist candidate who will shake up Washington. He represents the status quo.
Biden also suffered collateral damage in the impeachment trial. Democrats aimed at Mr. Trump but struck Biden, whose son Hunter's affiliation with a corrupt Ukraine gas firm received glaring attention during the trial. The mainstream media tried a blackout of news coverage to protect Biden.
It failed because social media was ablaze with juicy conspiracy theories and catty comments about the Bidens. Although no Democrat will ever admit it, Biden's reputation was sullied. Clever Buttigieg defended Biden in a debate, which only called more attention to the Biden imbroglio.
When the inevitable happens, a Morning Consult Poll shows Sanders is the top second choice for Biden supporters with 27% claiming they would vote for the senator. Fully 35% of Warren voters indicate they will switch to Sanders. Assuming both drop out, Sanders will solidify his lead.
When former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg leaped into the race, there was early chatter about him claiming the middle ground and uniting the party. Recent revelations about Bloomberg's views on minorities and crime have all but crippled his opportunity to ride his billions to the nomination.
That isn't Bloomberg's only achilles heel. He is a billionaire in a candidate field that preaches disdain for the wealthy. He is a solid but uninspiring campaigner. Bloomberg lacks charisma that even money can't buy. He is anathema to the socialist wing of the party. Can he overcome his shortfalls?
But make no mistake about it. Bloomberg is the Democrat establishment candidate. His campaign has just recently unleashed ads attacking Sanders' supporters, a dubious tactic that could backfire. For all the fawning over Bloomberg, he has yet to prove he can win a single primary.
Super Tuesday represents the last remaining test for Sanders. Fourteen states will hold primaries, including delegate-rich Texas and California. A total of 796 delegates will be at stake. If Sanders emerges with the most delegates, his challengers will face daunting odds.
That leaves Democrats staring at the likelihood that Sanders will have bagged the most delegates prior to the convention in Milwaukee in June. The question is: Will he have enough delegates to anoint him the presumptive nominee before then? The prospect of a brokered convention portends.
If there is a brokered convention, where the frontrunner is short of securing the nomination, history suggests the eventual winner will be too bloodied to win. The most recent brokered convention occurred in 1984 when Walter Mondale eventually won the nomination and then lost in a landslide.
Party purists are jittery about embracing Sanders, who runs for office in his home state of Maine as an Independent eschewing the Democrat label. Knots of Democrat House representatives and senators openly worried about the down ballot effect of Sanders in a recent New York Times article.
All that said, Democrats are wary of denying Sanders the nomination. In 2016 after Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, his voters were dispirited by what they viewed as a rigged system against their candidate. As a result, most stayed home on election day.
Alienating Sanders and his base will create a chasm in the Democratic Party. If another candidate emerges as the nominee, there is a real threat his supporters will remain on the sidelines. This is Sanders' last shot at the presidency. A snub might compel him to run as a third party candidate.
The current Democratic Party dilemma may sound familiar to Republicans. Not so long ago in 2016 the GOP establishment was bonkers about the prospect of Trump at the top of the ticket. Although he drew the largest crowds, he wasn't conservative enough, a former Democrat and anti-establishment.
Grudgingly, old guard Republicans accepted the reality that he would be the nominee and abandoned efforts to sabotage his candidacy. The Democratic Party could learn a lesson from this. Denying Bernie Sanders the nomination through skulduggery will likely sink the Democrat ship.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Debunking Narrative About America's Homeless
Across America homelessness is spiraling out of control. As many as 7.4 million Americans are without a home. Most homeless people suffer from mental health issues that are not being addressed. The situation worsens each year as homeless camps clutter many city streets.
For the record, every single statement in the opening paragraph is either inaccurate or misleading. Yet this narrative has been so often repeated in the media and by politicians that many Americans have accepted it as fact. The reason for the duplicity is to create the appearance of a national crisis.
A crisis triggers public demand for action, which often means more government programs, increased taxpayer funding, a larger bureaucracy to tackle the dilemma. But facts matter if we want the solutions to solve the problem instead of throwing around money to make us feel better.
Experts agree data on homelessness is often less than exact. The most credible source is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which conducts an annual Point-In-Time Count. The research is a one-day snapshot of homelessness across the country.
In the latest HUD survey in January 2019, some 568,000 people were counted as homeless. Of those, about 63% were residing in emergency shelters, transitional housing or safe havens. The remainder were living on the streets. More than 37,085 homeless individuals were military veterans.
Homelessness increased 3% over 2018, driven by a 16.4% jump in California. However, the number of homeless persons has fallen 12% since 2007. No data exists on how many homeless are illegal immigrants. For perspective, the homeless represent 0.2% of the U.S. population.
The National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty (NLCHP) has published its own homeless estimate of 7.4 million. Why the yawning discrepancy with HUD statistics? To decipher the difference requires a deep dive into how the legal advocacy group arrived at that figure.
By its own admission NLCHP counts as homeless adult children living with parents, roommates who don't own or rent the domicile or those siblings who might share an apartment or home. That renders their numbers dubious at best or grossly inaccurate at the least.
While there are homeless in every state, just five states make up 54% the total. You could probably guess which ones: California (151,278) , New York (92,091), Florida (28,328), Washington (21,577) and Oregon (15,876). Twenty-nines states had declines in homelessness in the 2019 HUD survey.
The figures verify that California and New York are experiencing a genuine crisis. The two states account for 42% of homeless individuals. It is not a coincidence that average home prices in the two states are the highest (Hawaii is No. 1) in the nation. There is a demonstrable correlation.
Research by the National Alliance to End Homelessness found that the lack of housing for low-income people is the top factor forcing people to live on the streets. Four in ten homeless people cannot afford any housing, including apartments.
As Californians and New Yorkers know all to well, escalating prices make buying out of reach for many residents. The average home price in New York is $1.73 million. In California, the average is $1.18 million. The median home prices for the two states are $425,000 and $549,000, respectively.
Apartment rental rates in those two states are also in the top five. The median monthly rental price for a one bedroom apartment in California is $1,453. In New York, the equivalent apartment goes for $1,294, according to a February report from the National Apartment List Rent Report.
In its research, the alliance discovered that 20% of the homeless have a serious mental illness. Some 16% reportedly have conditions related to substance abuse. A unreported number are fleeing domestic violence. Incentivizing the homeless to remain on the streets will not solve these issues.
There is already a federal government program to assist low-income people afford apartments. The Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as Section 8, provides government vouchers for low-income households to pay for housing in the private market.
However, Congress has not seen fit to increase funding to meet demand. Only one in four households that meet eligibility requirements receive vouchers because of the shortfall in funding. In view of the facts, Congress should be motivated to find taxpayer dollars to help those who qualify.
The CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition Diane Yentel, commenting on the latest HUD statistics, reminded the nation that homelessness is solvable. In her words:
"We have proven solutions to end homelessness, and in the wealthiest nation in the world, we have the resources to solve the problem. We lack only the political will to fund the solutions at the scale necessary."
In California, New York and a smattering of other states, the government appears uninterested in solutions. Instead, they have surrendered to the wishes of activists and allowed tent cities to be erected on the streets, now littered with used needles, human feces and urine, posing a health threat.
These misguided humanitarians are allowing the problem to fester. Homelessness will never be solved by seemingly well intentioned actions that fail to address housing costs, mental health issues, drug addiction and domestic abuse. Fostering tent cities is not the answer. That's why facts matter.
For the record, every single statement in the opening paragraph is either inaccurate or misleading. Yet this narrative has been so often repeated in the media and by politicians that many Americans have accepted it as fact. The reason for the duplicity is to create the appearance of a national crisis.
A crisis triggers public demand for action, which often means more government programs, increased taxpayer funding, a larger bureaucracy to tackle the dilemma. But facts matter if we want the solutions to solve the problem instead of throwing around money to make us feel better.
Experts agree data on homelessness is often less than exact. The most credible source is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which conducts an annual Point-In-Time Count. The research is a one-day snapshot of homelessness across the country.
In the latest HUD survey in January 2019, some 568,000 people were counted as homeless. Of those, about 63% were residing in emergency shelters, transitional housing or safe havens. The remainder were living on the streets. More than 37,085 homeless individuals were military veterans.
Homelessness increased 3% over 2018, driven by a 16.4% jump in California. However, the number of homeless persons has fallen 12% since 2007. No data exists on how many homeless are illegal immigrants. For perspective, the homeless represent 0.2% of the U.S. population.
The National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty (NLCHP) has published its own homeless estimate of 7.4 million. Why the yawning discrepancy with HUD statistics? To decipher the difference requires a deep dive into how the legal advocacy group arrived at that figure.
By its own admission NLCHP counts as homeless adult children living with parents, roommates who don't own or rent the domicile or those siblings who might share an apartment or home. That renders their numbers dubious at best or grossly inaccurate at the least.
While there are homeless in every state, just five states make up 54% the total. You could probably guess which ones: California (151,278) , New York (92,091), Florida (28,328), Washington (21,577) and Oregon (15,876). Twenty-nines states had declines in homelessness in the 2019 HUD survey.
The figures verify that California and New York are experiencing a genuine crisis. The two states account for 42% of homeless individuals. It is not a coincidence that average home prices in the two states are the highest (Hawaii is No. 1) in the nation. There is a demonstrable correlation.
Research by the National Alliance to End Homelessness found that the lack of housing for low-income people is the top factor forcing people to live on the streets. Four in ten homeless people cannot afford any housing, including apartments.
As Californians and New Yorkers know all to well, escalating prices make buying out of reach for many residents. The average home price in New York is $1.73 million. In California, the average is $1.18 million. The median home prices for the two states are $425,000 and $549,000, respectively.
Apartment rental rates in those two states are also in the top five. The median monthly rental price for a one bedroom apartment in California is $1,453. In New York, the equivalent apartment goes for $1,294, according to a February report from the National Apartment List Rent Report.
In its research, the alliance discovered that 20% of the homeless have a serious mental illness. Some 16% reportedly have conditions related to substance abuse. A unreported number are fleeing domestic violence. Incentivizing the homeless to remain on the streets will not solve these issues.
There is already a federal government program to assist low-income people afford apartments. The Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as Section 8, provides government vouchers for low-income households to pay for housing in the private market.
However, Congress has not seen fit to increase funding to meet demand. Only one in four households that meet eligibility requirements receive vouchers because of the shortfall in funding. In view of the facts, Congress should be motivated to find taxpayer dollars to help those who qualify.
The CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition Diane Yentel, commenting on the latest HUD statistics, reminded the nation that homelessness is solvable. In her words:
"We have proven solutions to end homelessness, and in the wealthiest nation in the world, we have the resources to solve the problem. We lack only the political will to fund the solutions at the scale necessary."
In California, New York and a smattering of other states, the government appears uninterested in solutions. Instead, they have surrendered to the wishes of activists and allowed tent cities to be erected on the streets, now littered with used needles, human feces and urine, posing a health threat.
These misguided humanitarians are allowing the problem to fester. Homelessness will never be solved by seemingly well intentioned actions that fail to address housing costs, mental health issues, drug addiction and domestic abuse. Fostering tent cities is not the answer. That's why facts matter.
Monday, February 3, 2020
America Is Drowning in Political Hatred
No matter the outcome of the contentious impeachment trial, America is destined to descend deeper into seething hatred that poses the biggest threat to our nation. Our country has a long history of political strife, but it has witnessed nothing like today's ugliness, except for the Civil War.
Once upon a time Americans could disagree politically without rancor and name-calling. Those days are gone replaced by hate-mongers, hate speech and hate groups. We make villains of those who disagree with our views and embrace personal destruction as a weapon to vanquish our opponents.
Democrats loathe Republicans. Republicans resent Democrats. Bipartisanship has no place in today's toxic environment. It encourages Americans to self-select into political tribes, each poised to wipe out the other camp from the face of the Earth. Tragically, this has become the new normal.
Political disagreements have turned into grudge matches instead of battles of ideas. Malice seduces us to rationalize demonizing others. Who's wrong? Evil people who don't believe like I do. Who's bad? Morons who hold kooky views. Who stands in the way of unity? Idiots from the other party.
This is worse than polarization. If you are searching for a comparable climate, look no further than the bloody Civil War. Politics as usual was replaced by hatred of groups and individuals. Northerners detested Southerners. The South despised the North. Brother turned against brother.
Some of you may consider this analogy hyperbole. However, no one can argue there are similarities. Americans today ostracize friends who disagree politically. Families are torn asunder by political disputes. It is no longer North versus South but Coastal versus Middle America.
Pundits attempt to pin this bitter division on one man: Donald J. Trump. But research shows political rage has been festering since at least George W. Bush. He was tagged the illegitimate president. A fictional movie was made about his assassination. The media savaged his daughters.
The bitterness continued after Barrack Obama's election. He too was called an illegitimate president because he was not a U.S. citizen. Rumors spread virally that he was secretly a Muslim. He was accused of being anti-American. However, the media discredited every malicious attack.
In the past, the office of the president was a hallowed institution respected by Americans, including those who did not vote for the occupant. This tradition has disappeared. The president is no longer the leader of all Americans but just those who voted for the officeholder.
Now sports teams routinely shun the long established custom of a White House reception out of spite. A comedian held up a severed bloody head of the Oval Office occupant. More than 60 Democrats boycotted President Trump's first State of the Union address.
These acts are not mere smears targeting Mr. Trump. Each demeans the office of the president. This petulant conduct is unbecoming of our heritage. It is vital to America's position in the world that we the people uphold the dignity of the office while disagreeing with the president.
Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits he is shocked by the denigration of the office of the president. He recounted in a recent newspaper article about a 2014 speech President Obama made in his country that was viewed by Australians as a slap at the government's climate policy.
His party pressured him to publicly rebuke Obama. He demurred because he felt it was a "discourtesy" to the "leader of the free world." He went on to elaborate: "In a sense he's everyone's president and the world needs him to succeed almost as much as America does."
Do we need an Australian to remind Americans about civility? That is a sad commentary on how far we have plunged into the cauldron of hatred. Whether we like it or not, the president represents all Americans, including those who are dead set on removing him from office.
I get it. Some of you find Mr. Trump offensive, crude and repulsive. But hatred? I have often had profound policy or personal differences with presidents. But I can honestly attest I have never hated a president. That is beneath us as Americans. It is the stuff of a third world country.
So how did we arrive at this juncture in our history? What is the source of this wellspring of loathing?
Both political parties are responsible for weaponizing the politics of personal destruction. Normal Americans don't want to literally destroy those of opposing political views. But Democrat and Republican forces consider it their mission to not just win but to vaporize the other side.
Negative ads featuring the worst dehumanizing attacks are a staple of our campaigns. Often the claims are false. These messages are designed to motivate us by creating a depraved view of the targeted politician. We are encouraged to hate the object of their derision.
Parties are not interested in waging a war of ideas. Their goal is to bully and intimidate the opposition into surrendering to their world view. Those with differing viewpoints are mocked, insulted and branded imbeciles. Some elected officials even want to censor opposing ideas.
Fanning the burning embers of hatred is a dishonest news media. They knowingly promote discord, stereotypes and controversy. In their world, the media bigwigs believe this is what gains viewers, sells newspapers or generates clicks. Add to this cacophony the swill on social media.
Public discourse on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms is degrading. Vile insults people would never utter face-to-face to a person clog the sewage pipes of social media. Politics is the grist for most of the anger and antagonism. Any decent American should be sickened.
My Democrat friends honestly believe once Mr. Trump leaves office there will be blissful harmony. It won't happen. Our country now resembles a sectarian state where hatred of groups is systemic. It will worsen because politicians and their puppet masters have a vested interest in tumult.
Rage is a useful political tool for justifying unconstitutional tactics, selective justice and any number of other misdeeds. Unless the tide reverses, America will suffocate in its own hatred. Americans must refuse to allow politicians or their parties to drag us into the drowning pool.
Disagreements have been a staple of the American democracy. We must return to respecting views we cannot abide. Contentious issues should not divide us but unite Americans in finding common ground. That is our American heritage. We are the United States. We need to start acting like it.
Once upon a time Americans could disagree politically without rancor and name-calling. Those days are gone replaced by hate-mongers, hate speech and hate groups. We make villains of those who disagree with our views and embrace personal destruction as a weapon to vanquish our opponents.
Democrats loathe Republicans. Republicans resent Democrats. Bipartisanship has no place in today's toxic environment. It encourages Americans to self-select into political tribes, each poised to wipe out the other camp from the face of the Earth. Tragically, this has become the new normal.
Political disagreements have turned into grudge matches instead of battles of ideas. Malice seduces us to rationalize demonizing others. Who's wrong? Evil people who don't believe like I do. Who's bad? Morons who hold kooky views. Who stands in the way of unity? Idiots from the other party.
This is worse than polarization. If you are searching for a comparable climate, look no further than the bloody Civil War. Politics as usual was replaced by hatred of groups and individuals. Northerners detested Southerners. The South despised the North. Brother turned against brother.
Some of you may consider this analogy hyperbole. However, no one can argue there are similarities. Americans today ostracize friends who disagree politically. Families are torn asunder by political disputes. It is no longer North versus South but Coastal versus Middle America.
Pundits attempt to pin this bitter division on one man: Donald J. Trump. But research shows political rage has been festering since at least George W. Bush. He was tagged the illegitimate president. A fictional movie was made about his assassination. The media savaged his daughters.
The bitterness continued after Barrack Obama's election. He too was called an illegitimate president because he was not a U.S. citizen. Rumors spread virally that he was secretly a Muslim. He was accused of being anti-American. However, the media discredited every malicious attack.
In the past, the office of the president was a hallowed institution respected by Americans, including those who did not vote for the occupant. This tradition has disappeared. The president is no longer the leader of all Americans but just those who voted for the officeholder.
Now sports teams routinely shun the long established custom of a White House reception out of spite. A comedian held up a severed bloody head of the Oval Office occupant. More than 60 Democrats boycotted President Trump's first State of the Union address.
These acts are not mere smears targeting Mr. Trump. Each demeans the office of the president. This petulant conduct is unbecoming of our heritage. It is vital to America's position in the world that we the people uphold the dignity of the office while disagreeing with the president.
Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits he is shocked by the denigration of the office of the president. He recounted in a recent newspaper article about a 2014 speech President Obama made in his country that was viewed by Australians as a slap at the government's climate policy.
His party pressured him to publicly rebuke Obama. He demurred because he felt it was a "discourtesy" to the "leader of the free world." He went on to elaborate: "In a sense he's everyone's president and the world needs him to succeed almost as much as America does."
Do we need an Australian to remind Americans about civility? That is a sad commentary on how far we have plunged into the cauldron of hatred. Whether we like it or not, the president represents all Americans, including those who are dead set on removing him from office.
I get it. Some of you find Mr. Trump offensive, crude and repulsive. But hatred? I have often had profound policy or personal differences with presidents. But I can honestly attest I have never hated a president. That is beneath us as Americans. It is the stuff of a third world country.
So how did we arrive at this juncture in our history? What is the source of this wellspring of loathing?
Both political parties are responsible for weaponizing the politics of personal destruction. Normal Americans don't want to literally destroy those of opposing political views. But Democrat and Republican forces consider it their mission to not just win but to vaporize the other side.
Negative ads featuring the worst dehumanizing attacks are a staple of our campaigns. Often the claims are false. These messages are designed to motivate us by creating a depraved view of the targeted politician. We are encouraged to hate the object of their derision.
Parties are not interested in waging a war of ideas. Their goal is to bully and intimidate the opposition into surrendering to their world view. Those with differing viewpoints are mocked, insulted and branded imbeciles. Some elected officials even want to censor opposing ideas.
Fanning the burning embers of hatred is a dishonest news media. They knowingly promote discord, stereotypes and controversy. In their world, the media bigwigs believe this is what gains viewers, sells newspapers or generates clicks. Add to this cacophony the swill on social media.
Public discourse on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms is degrading. Vile insults people would never utter face-to-face to a person clog the sewage pipes of social media. Politics is the grist for most of the anger and antagonism. Any decent American should be sickened.
My Democrat friends honestly believe once Mr. Trump leaves office there will be blissful harmony. It won't happen. Our country now resembles a sectarian state where hatred of groups is systemic. It will worsen because politicians and their puppet masters have a vested interest in tumult.
Rage is a useful political tool for justifying unconstitutional tactics, selective justice and any number of other misdeeds. Unless the tide reverses, America will suffocate in its own hatred. Americans must refuse to allow politicians or their parties to drag us into the drowning pool.
Disagreements have been a staple of the American democracy. We must return to respecting views we cannot abide. Contentious issues should not divide us but unite Americans in finding common ground. That is our American heritage. We are the United States. We need to start acting like it.
Monday, January 27, 2020
The Facts About the Impact of Political Ads
Political wags are chattering about former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gusher of ad spending, topping $200 million in barely a month. The billionaire is blanketing the airwaves to gain traction in the crowded Democratic Party primary. Pundits are hailing the strategy as brilliant.
Bloomberg's ad binge may yet prove effective, but the facts suggest he would do more good by setting fire to all that cash to heat a homeless shelter. Many people have been conditioned by the media and the political consultant class to accept conventional wisdom that political ads work.
That is at odds with numerous independent studies which show political advertising is ignored, ineffective and does not change voters minds. I know you are skeptical because you have heard campaign ad agencies, media airheads and consultants wax eloquently about advertising's impact.
But those disciples of political advertising all have a vested interest in convincing candidates of the value of millions of dollars spent on television, radio, social media, newspapers and robo calls. Have you ever wondered who benefits the most from that prodigious spending?
Here is the dirty secret. Nearly every dollar in ad buys ends up in the coffers of the liberal media. Consultants are rewarded because they can demand higher fees for managing huge ad budgets. Advertising agencies charge fat commissions for placing the ads in the media. It's a racket.
This incestuous cabal then brags about how advertising changed the tide of an election. No one challenges their assumptions because after all, they are the experts. If you have accepted that as fact, independent, unbiased studies might change your perception of campaign advertising.
Here is an unambiguous study published in the American Political Science Review by researchers from Yale and Stanford. After extensive research, the authors concluded: "The best estimates of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on (voters choices) in general elections is zero."
Did you hear that Michael Bloomberg? Zero! Nada. We are just warming up. Another research study authored by political scientists at the University of California-LA and Stanford found nearly half (42%) of viewers tune out all campaign television commercials.
People most likely to watch commercials are what the authors term "low engagement" people, couch potatoes who are not likely to vote. The next group are "high engagement" people, who have already made up their minds on the candidate of their choice. Ad executives are squirming in their limos.
I know some of you are shaking your heads, recalling campaign boasts that early ad spending won the election for Bill Clinton. Of course, that claim was made by his campaign consultant. And others may remember praise for Barrack Obama's advertising blitz that aided his 2008 election triumph.
In a 2010 study, political scientists Michael Franz and Travis Ridout conducted in-depth research to quantify advertising's impact on Obama's victory. Their estimate is that the advertising moved the voter needle for Obama by 0.551 points. That tiny difference is within the margin of statistical error.
But wait there's more. The authors reported the ads did not persuade anyone to actually vote for Obama, but was helpful in motivating turnout of people who already planned to cast their ballot for the former senator. Michael Bloomberg may want to fire his entire campaign ad staff.
Exit polls confirmed the findings of the research. Pollsters found that 78% of voters had made up their minds long before election day. Only four percent admitted they woke up election day and made their choice. Even that number flies in the face of previous research on voter decision making.
At this point, a few readers are nodding and muttering: "Yeah, but what about social media?" Big difference maker in 2016. Everyone has mentioned (either positively or negatively) the influence of social media on the election. But few if any have actually scientifically measured it.
Those who did, including one University of California-San Diego political scientist, uncovered no evidence to support those claims. His conclusion: "Social media had no measurable aggregated influence over voters' beliefs." That's not what most people have been spoon fed by the media.
Another study published in the Public Library of Science Journal reached the same conclusion about social media's role in the 2016 election. The author, Ohio State University communications professor Kelly Garrett, concluded social media played little, if any, role in influencing the outcome.
Despite the evidence, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from blaming misinformation planted on social media by nefarious Russians for her humiliating defeat. The bitter Clinton asserted social media posts turned the election in Mr. Trump's favor. She offered no proof for her views.
However, political consultants, media political reporters and advertising moguls all have publicly claimed advertising, especially on social media, swung the election. You would expect nothing less from the very people who profit the most by reinforcing the power of media to win elections.
If advertising really worked as well as its proponents claim, then Hillary Clinton would be president. She outspent Mr. Trump by a lopsided margin of two-to-one on advertising in legacy media as well as social media. Clinton purchased $141.7 million in advertising compared to $58.8 for Mr. Trump.
Her campaign spending dwarfed her opponent. According to OpenSecrets, the Clinton campaign shelled out $768 million to defeat Mr. Trump while the president's team tallied $398 million. These figures do not include expenditures by outside political surrogates on candidates' behalf.
That begs the question: Why do candidates continue to turn a blind eye to research and spend millions on advertising? The answer is simple: Elite consultants have cultivated a mystique about the ability of advertising messaging to win elections. They point to their past victories as evidence.
This aura is sustained by those with the most to gain: the media and ad agencies. These co-conspirators assert without contradiction that no candidate can win a national election without a Tsunami of advertising. Few dare to contradict their professed infallibility.
However, even a seismic wave of advertising won't help a lousy candidate. Michael Bloomberg could spend $1 trillion on advertising and still fail to capture the Democratic Party nomination. No doubt if he loses his consultants will claim the Russians rigged the election for the winner.
Bloomberg's ad binge may yet prove effective, but the facts suggest he would do more good by setting fire to all that cash to heat a homeless shelter. Many people have been conditioned by the media and the political consultant class to accept conventional wisdom that political ads work.
That is at odds with numerous independent studies which show political advertising is ignored, ineffective and does not change voters minds. I know you are skeptical because you have heard campaign ad agencies, media airheads and consultants wax eloquently about advertising's impact.
But those disciples of political advertising all have a vested interest in convincing candidates of the value of millions of dollars spent on television, radio, social media, newspapers and robo calls. Have you ever wondered who benefits the most from that prodigious spending?
Here is the dirty secret. Nearly every dollar in ad buys ends up in the coffers of the liberal media. Consultants are rewarded because they can demand higher fees for managing huge ad budgets. Advertising agencies charge fat commissions for placing the ads in the media. It's a racket.
This incestuous cabal then brags about how advertising changed the tide of an election. No one challenges their assumptions because after all, they are the experts. If you have accepted that as fact, independent, unbiased studies might change your perception of campaign advertising.
Here is an unambiguous study published in the American Political Science Review by researchers from Yale and Stanford. After extensive research, the authors concluded: "The best estimates of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on (voters choices) in general elections is zero."
Did you hear that Michael Bloomberg? Zero! Nada. We are just warming up. Another research study authored by political scientists at the University of California-LA and Stanford found nearly half (42%) of viewers tune out all campaign television commercials.
People most likely to watch commercials are what the authors term "low engagement" people, couch potatoes who are not likely to vote. The next group are "high engagement" people, who have already made up their minds on the candidate of their choice. Ad executives are squirming in their limos.
I know some of you are shaking your heads, recalling campaign boasts that early ad spending won the election for Bill Clinton. Of course, that claim was made by his campaign consultant. And others may remember praise for Barrack Obama's advertising blitz that aided his 2008 election triumph.
In a 2010 study, political scientists Michael Franz and Travis Ridout conducted in-depth research to quantify advertising's impact on Obama's victory. Their estimate is that the advertising moved the voter needle for Obama by 0.551 points. That tiny difference is within the margin of statistical error.
But wait there's more. The authors reported the ads did not persuade anyone to actually vote for Obama, but was helpful in motivating turnout of people who already planned to cast their ballot for the former senator. Michael Bloomberg may want to fire his entire campaign ad staff.
Exit polls confirmed the findings of the research. Pollsters found that 78% of voters had made up their minds long before election day. Only four percent admitted they woke up election day and made their choice. Even that number flies in the face of previous research on voter decision making.
At this point, a few readers are nodding and muttering: "Yeah, but what about social media?" Big difference maker in 2016. Everyone has mentioned (either positively or negatively) the influence of social media on the election. But few if any have actually scientifically measured it.
Those who did, including one University of California-San Diego political scientist, uncovered no evidence to support those claims. His conclusion: "Social media had no measurable aggregated influence over voters' beliefs." That's not what most people have been spoon fed by the media.
Another study published in the Public Library of Science Journal reached the same conclusion about social media's role in the 2016 election. The author, Ohio State University communications professor Kelly Garrett, concluded social media played little, if any, role in influencing the outcome.
Despite the evidence, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from blaming misinformation planted on social media by nefarious Russians for her humiliating defeat. The bitter Clinton asserted social media posts turned the election in Mr. Trump's favor. She offered no proof for her views.
However, political consultants, media political reporters and advertising moguls all have publicly claimed advertising, especially on social media, swung the election. You would expect nothing less from the very people who profit the most by reinforcing the power of media to win elections.
If advertising really worked as well as its proponents claim, then Hillary Clinton would be president. She outspent Mr. Trump by a lopsided margin of two-to-one on advertising in legacy media as well as social media. Clinton purchased $141.7 million in advertising compared to $58.8 for Mr. Trump.
Her campaign spending dwarfed her opponent. According to OpenSecrets, the Clinton campaign shelled out $768 million to defeat Mr. Trump while the president's team tallied $398 million. These figures do not include expenditures by outside political surrogates on candidates' behalf.
That begs the question: Why do candidates continue to turn a blind eye to research and spend millions on advertising? The answer is simple: Elite consultants have cultivated a mystique about the ability of advertising messaging to win elections. They point to their past victories as evidence.
This aura is sustained by those with the most to gain: the media and ad agencies. These co-conspirators assert without contradiction that no candidate can win a national election without a Tsunami of advertising. Few dare to contradict their professed infallibility.
However, even a seismic wave of advertising won't help a lousy candidate. Michael Bloomberg could spend $1 trillion on advertising and still fail to capture the Democratic Party nomination. No doubt if he loses his consultants will claim the Russians rigged the election for the winner.
Monday, January 13, 2020
When Life Throws You A Curve
I have been counting down the days until my hip surgery on January 13. In hindsight, I should have been wary of the ominous date. Thirteen. There is a reason hotels have no 13th floor. Like a space launch, the surgery date has been scrubbed due to unfavorable conditions. Bum. Bum. Bummer.
The abbreviated version of this saga is that the hip replacement will have to wait for a more pressing surgery. I have a bulging disc in my neck, spinal stenosis and a pinched nerve. To relieve the symptoms, I will undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or ACDF in surgical lingo.
Warning: the squeamish may want to skip this description of the procedure. The surgeon will reach the neck through an incision in the throat area and remove two damaged discs in my neck, replacing them with cadaver bone grafts. The bone grafts and vertebrae are fixed in place with a titanium plate.
Sounds like a pain in the neck, right? But I have new found wisdom. This surgery is scheduled January 14 in deference to my triskaidekaphobia (fear of number 13). Despite the complicated neck procedure, the neurosurgeon assured me this is a routine, minimally invasive operation.
Warning: the squeamish may want to skip this description of the procedure. The surgeon will reach the neck through an incision in the throat area and remove two damaged discs in my neck, replacing them with cadaver bone grafts. The bone grafts and vertebrae are fixed in place with a titanium plate.
Sounds like a pain in the neck, right? But I have new found wisdom. This surgery is scheduled January 14 in deference to my triskaidekaphobia (fear of number 13). Despite the complicated neck procedure, the neurosurgeon assured me this is a routine, minimally invasive operation.
Moments after those soothing words, he added somberly: "I am required to advise you that the surgery is not risk free. You could die. You could be paralyzed." He smiled and reassured, "But that has never happened to one of my patients." I hope he has done more than one of these procedures.
Surgery requires a one day hospital stay, which means eating suspicious clumps of nourishment. Hospital food is an oxymoron. Medical facilities should offer an optional fast food meal delivered by DoorDash or UberEats. Hospitals remain stuck in the 19th food century.
Once released from Hell's Kitchen, I will be required to wear a soft white neck collar for two to three weeks. I plan to make the best of it. Here's my thought: Wear a black sports coat and black shirt with the white collar. Everyone will assume I am a priest and start unburdening their consciences to me.
I might hang around the confessional at my Catholic church at odd hours hoping to snag some unsuspecting sinner. Or I could visit retirement homes and run the bingo game. This may turn into a permanent gig in retirement. Father Roy has a nice ring to it. But without the celibate canon.
Once I recover, I am skedaddling to an orthopedic doc to schedule hip surgery. Two surgeries in the same year are like winning the military draft lottery during the Vietnam War. I knew I should have opted for the extended body parts warranty when it was offered 73 years ago. Too late now.
Some of you (the few still reading) may wonder how I went from hip to neck surgery in the blink of a surgeon's eye. For the curious, let me explain. I had been dealing with neck and shoulder pain for about seven months. Remedies failed to relieve my symptoms and the pain worsened.
The first neurosurgeon who viewed the MRI of my neck assured me I did not need surgery. In fact, he diagnosed the problem was in my shoulder. Likely a muscle spasm or possibly a pinched nerve. I gulped pills to no avail. After a few exasperating months, I checked in with a shoulder specialist.
She ordered physical therapy. Two months later my status was quo. A few steroid shorts and physiotherapy followed. No change. If anything, the pain escalated. Next stop a pain management specialist who looked at my MRI and announced, "Your neck sucks." Those are my words not his.
At last, I was encouraged to at least know what was causing my shoulder pain. I found the best neurosurgeon and the rest, as they say, is medical history. He advised that hip surgery might cause damage to my spine. That sober warning prompted my decision to have the neck repaired first.
Along my medical journey, I gained a few valuable lessons. Always trust what your body is telling you. Doctors can view MRI's, X-rays and perform physical examinations for a diagnosis. But they cannot get inside your body and feel the pain. You own the pain and you own your body.
Never unquestioningly accept a doctor's diagnosis. It is better to be skeptical, to ask questions and, perhaps, to get another medical opinion. After my initial diagnosis, I wish I had reached out to another neuro specialist. But hindsight is a sower of doubt and regrets. I prefer to live in the present.
That's why you need a healthy dose of Faith to make it through the medical hoops and physical distress of pain. I know God is leading me, even though the route has been circuitous. All in God's time not mine. I may have doubts about doctors in general, but none about my Faith.
If you know a prayer, please recite one for my speedy recovery. (If you don't pray, just avoid being within 100 miles of lightning storms.)
If you know a prayer, please recite one for my speedy recovery. (If you don't pray, just avoid being within 100 miles of lightning storms.)
Until I am able to pound a keyboard again, I will take a medical sabbatical. I will miss creating these columns. Writing is a passion of mine. However, soon I will be back at my desk, gazing at my computer and tapping the keyboard. Only then, it will be without pain in my neck and shoulder.
Monday, January 6, 2020
National Debt: Politicians Spending Addiction
Yawn. That's the reaction of most Americans when anyone raises the issue of the country's rotund national debt. The size of the debt--$23.1 trillion--should concern every American. Instead people figure it's the federal government's problem. Not their worry. They are sadly mistaken or misled.
Quantifying the national debt can be reduced to a few key numbers. America's debt equals $179,695 for every household in the country. The federal government carries 46% more debt than the combined debt of every household in America. The debt is 107% of the U.S. economy.
Even those sobering figures fall short of calibrating the size of the debt. Consider that in the last 19 years the government has racked up more debt than than in the previous 100 years. Since 2000, the U.S. has amassed $17.5 trillion in new debt as a result of spending more than its revenues.
The federal government's record spending binge threatens the financial health of the country, which ultimately impacts businesses, jobs and wages. The budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion, a colossal 164% increase in spending since 2000. Politicians of both parties are complicit.
Federal government revenues are rising too, but at a slower pace. The federal government estimates it will receive $3.64 trillion in revenue, the lion's share to be paid by individual taxpayers like you. In 2000, $2.03 trillion flowed into the U.S. Treasury. America doesn't have a revenue problem.
In 2020, the deficit or revenue shortfall will climb to $1.01 trillion by the time the government fiscal year ends September 30. Since the end of the Clinton Administration, each Congress and president has overspent. This trend is unsustainable without major changes in expenditures
It helps to understand what is driving government spending. In the current budget, six out of every 10 dollars goes to mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, federal pensions, Obamacare and veterans programs.
Mandatory spending has automatic increases built in as more people are added to the rolls. Increases in benefits are baked into the budget too. To put this in perspective, in 1968, three years after Medicare and Medicaid were created, mandatory spending represented just 27% of the budget.
For fiscal 2020, here is a breakdown of the budget for the top three mandatory spending programs: Social Security, $1.1 trillion; Medicare, $679 billion; and Medicaid, $418 billion. Total mandatory expenditures are budgeted at $2.841 trillion.
This spending category is called mandatory because these programs have been mandated by law to be funded. This rigid requirement leaves little room for so-called discretionary spending, which amounts to 13.3% of the current budget. The national defense consumes 12.4% of spending.
The remaining 11.7% of the budget is devoted to paying interest on the debt. Nearly $480 billion is included in the 2020 budget to service the interest. There is no room in the budget to actually pay down the debt or principle. Each year the interest gobbles up a greater percentage of the budget.
Congress has no incentive to reign in spending. Representatives and senators use the budget as personal piggy banks to fund pet projects in their districts. That doesn't mean the expenditures are all wasteful, but lawmakers view the projects as little more than a downpayment on their reelection.
If Congress actually followed its own rules of producing a national budget, there would be more scrutiny of these expenditures. But lawmakers have failed to pass an annual budget in seven of the last 15 fiscal years, instead using what's known as continuing resolutions to fund the government.
These temporary funding resolutions usually cover six months or less leaving little incentive for a substantial spending debate. These resolutions are the product of eleventh hour, horse-trading sessions designed to win both parties' votes and avoid political blame for a government shutdown.
Most senators and representatives, if they are honest, will admit there is too little time for members to even read what is included in the spending resolution. They are essentially blindly rubber stamping a budget that has been engineered by a handful of members behind closed doors.
This cannot continue if Americans want accountability from their government. Congress needs to return to the budget process where spending, the debt and specific programs are reviewed, debated, prioritized and voted on. Congress has no greater duty than to establish the federal budget.
Unfortunately, there is only the dimmest hope this will ever happen. A divided government, partisan bickering and voter apathy have all contributed to today's sausage making process that serves the interests of senators and representatives but lacks transparency for the American people.
Americans must demand change by contacting their elected representatives and senators. Otherwise, Congressional members will continue on a track that surely will one day bankrupt the country and force extreme measures, including crippling taxes and Draconian budget cuts.
That day draws nearer each year that Congress refuses to tackle spending and the ballooning debt.
Quantifying the national debt can be reduced to a few key numbers. America's debt equals $179,695 for every household in the country. The federal government carries 46% more debt than the combined debt of every household in America. The debt is 107% of the U.S. economy.
Even those sobering figures fall short of calibrating the size of the debt. Consider that in the last 19 years the government has racked up more debt than than in the previous 100 years. Since 2000, the U.S. has amassed $17.5 trillion in new debt as a result of spending more than its revenues.
The federal government's record spending binge threatens the financial health of the country, which ultimately impacts businesses, jobs and wages. The budget for fiscal year 2020 is $4.7 trillion, a colossal 164% increase in spending since 2000. Politicians of both parties are complicit.
Federal government revenues are rising too, but at a slower pace. The federal government estimates it will receive $3.64 trillion in revenue, the lion's share to be paid by individual taxpayers like you. In 2000, $2.03 trillion flowed into the U.S. Treasury. America doesn't have a revenue problem.
In 2020, the deficit or revenue shortfall will climb to $1.01 trillion by the time the government fiscal year ends September 30. Since the end of the Clinton Administration, each Congress and president has overspent. This trend is unsustainable without major changes in expenditures
It helps to understand what is driving government spending. In the current budget, six out of every 10 dollars goes to mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, federal pensions, Obamacare and veterans programs.
Mandatory spending has automatic increases built in as more people are added to the rolls. Increases in benefits are baked into the budget too. To put this in perspective, in 1968, three years after Medicare and Medicaid were created, mandatory spending represented just 27% of the budget.
For fiscal 2020, here is a breakdown of the budget for the top three mandatory spending programs: Social Security, $1.1 trillion; Medicare, $679 billion; and Medicaid, $418 billion. Total mandatory expenditures are budgeted at $2.841 trillion.
This spending category is called mandatory because these programs have been mandated by law to be funded. This rigid requirement leaves little room for so-called discretionary spending, which amounts to 13.3% of the current budget. The national defense consumes 12.4% of spending.
The remaining 11.7% of the budget is devoted to paying interest on the debt. Nearly $480 billion is included in the 2020 budget to service the interest. There is no room in the budget to actually pay down the debt or principle. Each year the interest gobbles up a greater percentage of the budget.
Congress has no incentive to reign in spending. Representatives and senators use the budget as personal piggy banks to fund pet projects in their districts. That doesn't mean the expenditures are all wasteful, but lawmakers view the projects as little more than a downpayment on their reelection.
If Congress actually followed its own rules of producing a national budget, there would be more scrutiny of these expenditures. But lawmakers have failed to pass an annual budget in seven of the last 15 fiscal years, instead using what's known as continuing resolutions to fund the government.
These temporary funding resolutions usually cover six months or less leaving little incentive for a substantial spending debate. These resolutions are the product of eleventh hour, horse-trading sessions designed to win both parties' votes and avoid political blame for a government shutdown.
Most senators and representatives, if they are honest, will admit there is too little time for members to even read what is included in the spending resolution. They are essentially blindly rubber stamping a budget that has been engineered by a handful of members behind closed doors.
This cannot continue if Americans want accountability from their government. Congress needs to return to the budget process where spending, the debt and specific programs are reviewed, debated, prioritized and voted on. Congress has no greater duty than to establish the federal budget.
Unfortunately, there is only the dimmest hope this will ever happen. A divided government, partisan bickering and voter apathy have all contributed to today's sausage making process that serves the interests of senators and representatives but lacks transparency for the American people.
Americans must demand change by contacting their elected representatives and senators. Otherwise, Congressional members will continue on a track that surely will one day bankrupt the country and force extreme measures, including crippling taxes and Draconian budget cuts.
That day draws nearer each year that Congress refuses to tackle spending and the ballooning debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)