The Death of the Average Worker

Explaining The Rising Death Rate In Middle-Aged White People : Shots - Health News : NPR





And yet this group didn't vote for the party that says it will work to their advantage.  And why should they.  The Democratic Party had not been on these people's sides for at least 30 years, probably longer and we need to be honest about why that is.  The Democratic Party has paid more attention to large financial interests such as the big investment banks.  It was the Democratic Party that removed the restrictions placed by the Glass-Steagall act that made it easier for the behemoths of Wall Street to drive the economy into the gutter and force the hand of the government to reach out to save them.  Since then legislation meant to curb the banks has been under attack from the right which is nothing short of incredible since they also managed to get the displaced workers to vote for them.  It doesn't matter that the GOP and Libertarians are lying through their teeth when they say that less regulation will create more jobs.  It is enough, at least for now, that someone is paying attention to them.



Under Bush 41 NAFTA was negotiated and it probably needed to be due to increased globalization and to increase exports from American industry but it also meant that we had to accept goods from elsewhere that could be sold more cheaply.  The problem with this is that we left the American Worker behind.  There should have been legislation that would have ensured that the displaced worker would either be placed into another equally lucrative field or that he would be compensated, for lifetime if necessary, for the loss of his way of life.  Then retraining would make sense for younger workers but it has to be recognized that even with retraining there still has to be jobs for them to go into.  Again, this is the role of government to introduce stimulating legislation to help these new industries to get on their feet.  Is this a socialist program?  Absolutely, but the Democratic Party can't afford to be Republican lite.  The Democratic Party has to be obviously the party of the American Worker.   Would this increase the size of government?  Absolutely, but the people need to understand that government is their friend, not their enemy.



As it is what on earth does the displaced American Worker have to give him or her confidence in being able to provide for the family and to feel useful and productive. Absolutely nothing and that is where the Republican Party, Libertarians and all, are happy to leave them.  Leave them there until market forces create new jobs (or not) for them.  Well, it will be too late for them and, as this PBS report says, they will succumb to the comfort and oblivion of alcohol and drugs.  Cue the next generation for whom the 4 year college degree is no longer the key to unlock the door to a successful career and another generation is lost until it has become an avalanche that will only be cured by disaster.



The point is that we know what needs to be done.  It is a matter of deciding to make government do the job that only it can do to work for the average American Worker as well as it works for the 1%.  Of course it will cost money and there should be an assessment on the industry that is benefiting form the offshoring of jobs to help pay for it.  Why on earth would Democrats expect market forces to treat the people fairly?  Market forces do not do that.  They favor those with power and that power has to be curbed.  There is no solution to this problem in the ferocity of unfettered capitalism just as the answer does not lie in pure communism.  The balance must be sought and the defining characteristic of that balance must be the welfare of the Average Worker.



The Democratic Party came into greatness after the crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression.  People realized that there was only one option if they wanted government to work for them.  The growth of labor unions exemplified the power of the many but good times allowed the Democratic Party to drift away from the economic well being of the Average Worker.  The avarice of the free market, idolized by the Republican Party, is relentless and it steadily encroached on the welfare of the worker until President Reagan when it burst into its full glory and the average American Worker has not had a raise since then even though productivity has increased exponentially.  The rebirth of the Democratic Party will not come unless we take off our suits and put on our boots.  We need to get down into the trenches with the people and make them understand they have a partner.  It will not be easy.  Nor should it be.  The very first thing that must be done is to level the playing field by removed the cancer of money influencing our political system.  This must be done to return elected representatives fealty to the people rather than monied special interests.

When to Lay it Down

 This report on the PBS Newshour is very good and brings some logic to the arguments being bandied about on various issues.  It not only draws some contradictions between the ACA and the replacement bill but it also deals with how news media is to handle blatantly false statements made by the administration without seeming like attack dogs.  It is a very serious question that needs some addressing or the lies will be lost in the chatter.




This link takes you to the report by the CBO but also discussed is how does the new media get answers to demonstrably false statements by the President.

Affordable Care Act or American Health Care Plan

Today, Monday March 13, the PBS newshour had this report on the proposed replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act.  It is a pretty good debate in that it illustrates the different viewpoints of the interested parties. This link takes you to the video on PBS  The proponents of the replacement bill see giving choice back to those being insured as being paramount.  They see that as being preferable to the point of insuring the most people and keeping costs at an average cost for everyone.  It points out rather dramatically the differences of perspective of the two political parties.  The ACA attempts to insure the most people by spreading risk across the entire pool population while its replacement makes no such attempt.  It is simply to allow the market to price certain segments of the population out of the market thereby making it cheaper for those who can afford it.  The replacement does not mandate the same coverages that the ACA does thereby making it possible for people to choose less coverage for less money.  The ACA says those people are going to seek treatment after their coverage runs out thereby increasing risk to the taxpayer.  It all depends on the view that you take.  If you are young and healthy you may decide to forego coverage entirely and take your chances.  If something happens you'll go to the emergency room for treatment and, if you get it, either the hospital will take the loss or the taxpayer will pick it up.  If you are, say, age 55 to 64 then your coverage will cost you far more than it does now which will effectively force you out of the market and into the same quandary as the others who lack insurance.

Personally, I can't live with the idea that we will allow fellow citizens to go without medical care just because they can't afford to pay some multi-billion dollar insurance company what it thinks it can get.  This is what makes the difference for me.  I think it is acceptable to ask those who have resources to pay a bit more in order to take care of those less fortunate.  The real inequity between the two bills is caused by forcing people to buy insurance on the open market which is what big business loves.  A national health care plan (Medicare for all) takes care of this.  Even giving people access to a subsidized public option would help.

I hope this helps someone reason through their thoughts on this subject.

Let's Rethink This

This is really not hard to understand. Anyone who reads a newspaper or who gets news from any other source besides Faux News and Breitbart understands this. I am, nevertheless, astounded at the number of people who, from all indications, get their information exactly that way.

Now hear this! Those jobs that the President says he is going to bring back to our shores are not coming back. This is just the plain, simple truth and here is why.

Post WWII Dresden

After WWII the United States had the only manufacturing base in the world that was not bombed into oblivion. Germany was divided into two parts and Europe was devastated. If you needed a refrigerator or washing machine you got it from the United States. Same with wheel bearings and widgets. In the 70 years since then the world has caught up. Now they can do it where they are and do it cheaper. We won't work for $2 per day nor should we. The jobs turning nuts or putting in
windshields are now done by robots. They will work 24 hours per day and not unionize to demand higher wages and vacations. If you are a high school graduate without any skills you are NOT in demand and you are not going to be in demand unless you are willing to work alongside immigrants that work hard for
minimum wage. Just accept that. We will still manufacture stuff here it just will not require you to do it. It will require people with advanced skills. There are other opportunities in the skilled trades and in health care that could be good jobs and need to be taken advantage of. But, we killed the unions that guaranteed good wages and benefits so now we don't have that.

The former Middle Class is in trouble. It's not that we don't have enough jobs. It is just that they don't put enough money in your pocket so the real question is not about bringing jobs back. It is about how do we make these jobs pay enough to sustain the American Dream. Think about this. $10 per hour is $400 per week before taxes. $15 per hour is $600 per week, about $30K per year. Can you live the American Dream on that? Pay for health care, college and braces for the kid's teeth? No, you can't. Now, if you are one of those Pulaski County residents who work at one of the factories out on 461 how much are you making?

So, just ask yourself this question. What can we do to assure that every American has the opportunity to earn not only a living wage but one that would all him or her to participate in the American Dream. If we deport all the illegal immigrants do you think that our native citizens would feel empowered to fill those jobs? Well, trends suggest that is not so. If we lower taxes on corporations will they be empowered to reinvest that money in new plants and new jobs? Well, trends suggest that is not so. What will create jobs and put money in the hands of workers. Infrastructure for one. Highways and bridges. How can we pay for it without increasing the already outlandish national debt? There are not too many ways to do that. Either allow private enterprise to build and charge us to use it, cut spending or raise taxes. When we built most of the infrastructure we have the top tax rate was 93%.

So, I'm going to just mention a few things. I'm not original in this. Hillary Clinton actually spoke about stuff like this but she couldn't figure out how to make it into a meme or 10 second sound byte. It is true that trade agreements have contributed to offshoring of jobs. What is not true is that we could have stopped it. Domestic markets are saturated, foreign markets are emerging. There is a demand for cheap products here in America. What could have been done was to support those whose jobs were dislocated due to NAFTA even if it meant doing so for the rest of their careers. Lots of
them were just aged out of the new economy. Retraining should be part of that support and creation of jobs through the use of government stimulus for those who were retrained to step into. Continuation of benefits even after a job is found so that the shock won't be financially debilitating. This last one is one we should be using now when we move people from government assistance to work. The loss of benefits in many cases offsets wages and creates a disincentive to work. And, central to all of this is access to a health care plan that is affordable and comprehensive. I prefer Medicare for all. This provision in the ACA has allowed countless entrepreneurs to start new businesses knowing that they will not have to suffer for giving up their work related health care. We should be supporting displaced workers who have lost jobs due to automation in the same way. It is not right that the American Worker should have to bear the negative results of improved productivity. Things like this should be taken into account when taxes are assessed so that corporations don't benefit from windfall profits. You may say, “well, they were just being smart” and that is true. No one disputes that but it still should not totally fall on the shoulders of the American Worker. No wonder they have no faith in government institutions.

My Take is that we are not going to bring those low skill jobs back. It is that we need to do a much better job of supporting those impacted until they are able to meet the needs of the modern manufacturers.

Rise to Resist

The Resistance has formed a couple of local groups of which I am aware. As far as I can tell they are populated largely by women. This is understandable since it was the women who took up the cause and forged a way to national consciousness with the Women's March on Washington the day after the inauguration. The numbers and the timing were splendid for effect. We are seeing reports that Republican representatives are not holding town hall meetings during their off time for fear of encountering these members of the resistance that have questions that demand answers. But what I have to tell you is this. Unless the men become as involved as the women there will be no overall success. Men have to get up off the couch and give the women some support. It is vital that the resistance be visible and vocal in order to attract attention and supporters who have not become aware of these opportunities. In addition, there needs to be more effort to recruit more youth. It is from the youth that energy, vigor and idealism comes. This has to be a national movement that involves people from Somerset to Los Angeles. This is no time to be timid.

Which Side Are You On

I don't think it will come as any surprise that the people who did not want Trump to be President are pretty upset. I just wish every one had been this upset BEFORE the election. Personally, I am getting over the mourning and grief stage and moving into the reluctantly accepting stage. I'll have to say that I am encouraged by the outpouring of protest against the current government's policies. They are certainly the most I've seen since the '60s. Over the past few administrations I had begun to fear that the progressives had lost their communal voice and, to be honest, I think we had. I think it took something so drastic to reawaken the progressive spirit that has been responsible for practically every advancement our nation has made. Without that voice to resist those who would never consider any kind of change we would still be laboring in sweat shops alongside our children.

Just as those who opposed President Obama 8 years ago, I find nothing to appreciate in our current President. Even though I understand the deep resentment felt by the working class it has been astonishing to me that so many would fail to understand the reasons for the loss that stimulated that resentment. However to have chosen as ill equipped a man as Donald Trump to carry us out of our great miasma seems to me to have been spectacularly ill considered. I have disagreed with every single action he has taken since inauguration.

It is eerie how quiet is the voice of the reactionary right in the shadow of some of the dreadful things he has done. It seems to me to be evident that the man is unbalanced and dangerous but I have to conclude that those who supported him are satisfied with how he is doing things and that troubles me even more. I have seen some rejoinders to criticism of his actions saying “it's only been 3 weeks, give him a chance.” I have to ask “a chance to do what.” His promises and his actions are what he said he would do. At least as far as trade and immigration but he hasn't been too faithful in holding those denizens of Wall Street's feet to the fire. No indeed. His entire cabinet is made up of millionaires and billionaires and he has sworn to tear down the structures put in place to lessen the chance of it happening again. I take him at his word that he is going to deconstruct the Affordable Care Act. I have to say that I don't believe him when he says he is going to replace it with something better, so much better. From the looks of things the Republicans are finding that the ACA was more popular than they thought which only confirms that people didn't have a problem with the ACA. They had a problem with President Obama. Well, I suppose we'll see how many are eager to go back home and tell their constituents they no longer have access to health care and, surprise, they've got nothing better. I can't understand any impulse to give him a chance when he attacks an entire religious faith and bans immigrants and refugees from countries that have never mounted an attack on the United States. Even if one could find a way to make the ban constitutional it could never be considered moral or ethical and it would contradict everything the United States has represented over the centuries. When he insults allies and casts doubt on decades old alliances that have kept world peace how can we give him more of a chance to do worse? How can we allow him to think that it is okay to equate American foreign policy with that of Russia. Whatever happened to the doctrine of American Exceptionalism that the conservative right hung the moon on? How can we do nothing when families are broken apart because a parent may not have legal papers? Is there no room for compassion? Is there no thought of sharing the largess that we enjoy? How are we supposed to give him a chance on that? And, by the way, where were all those voices 8 years ago when President Obama was proposing policies to unify rather than tear apart? It would have been good to have heard a few of them then.

And so a resistance is born. The Women's March on Washington was a watershed moment in social and political affairs. It remains to be seen whether or not that fervor can be sustained until the actions come to fruition. If it can be then the republic has a chance to remain a democracy. If not then we will face a government that is more and more repressive in the false hope for security and a more dangerous world in which to live. Groups are forming across the country much in the same way as the Tea Party movement was born. It remains to be seen whether or not the funding will be there in the same way it was with the Tea Party. As distasteful as many of us find it the anger will have to feed the energy of the disaffected until it becomes a movement. It was out of such energy that the Period of the Enlightenment fed the impulse to form the great progressive movement of the American Revolution and the penning of the Constitution which gives life to the effort. I am afraid that letter writing and phone calls will not be enough to change the course of repression. As it was 50 years ago it will take visible and vocal demonstrations to not only gain the attention of the ruling class but to also allow the fervor to infect the apathetic until a new governing majority is formed.

My Take is that if the progressive republic is to be saved then you will have to choose. In the inimitable words of Florence Reece, “Which side are you on?”

Divisive Speech

I got called out today for using divisive speech. I have to admit that it probably could be construed in that manner. In my defense I have read recently that lying must also bear intent to deceive and therefore our President is not guilty of prevarication. In the same vein my intent was not to be divisive but to encourage people who are not in agreement with me to change their ways. Decisively and rapidly. However, I have been a bit out of sorts since the election and I may have expressed my sentiments crudely. Anyway, I admitted that my inner child had escaped and gave voice to his inner sentiments much in the same way that I will sometimes allow a curse word to pass my lips. Now, I was raised to believe that using profanity was the surest indicator of a low quality vocabulary but, you have to admit it, sometimes you just can't make the same point with polite speech. Anyway, I hastened to assure my accuser that I was ready, willing and able to meet with anyone to discuss policy in a sane manner, sans profanity and ridiculous allegations such as the President being born in Kenya. I reserve the right to demand verifiable sources and, for the record, I do not consider Infowars or Breitbart News to be either verifiable or sources since they make the stuff up on the go.

I was as stunned as Chuck Todd when KellyAnne Conway let the words “alternative facts” slip out. She surely choked on her tongue as soon as those words were loosed but Chuck was on that like a duck on a Junebug. To his credit he said that alternative facts were falsehoods when I probably would have used the word “lies.” But I am not as erudite as Chuck. Nor do I have a high profile job to protect. I noticed today that the Dallas Daily News (this is in Texas) wasn't as erudite as Chuck either and called that and other statements “lies.” Which brings to mind that Congressman from our state most likely to secede to yell out at President Obama “you lie!” Now, that was what I call a divisive statement but it had the general affect of uniting the GOP and Tea Partiers (is there a difference any more). I've got to tell you. Had I been President Obama I would have stopped right there and demanded satisfaction from him by a duel of a game of HORSE. Suitably humiliated he surely would have crept back to his lair never to be heard from again but the President took the high road. You know, “when they go low, we go high.”

The point here being where in the world were those people who now eschew divisive speech eight years ago when the President-to be was mouthing off about the lack of a birth certificate and allegations that Barack Obama was not a citizen. Where were those people who now want to give President Trump a chance when the GOP was riding the wave of President Obama being a closet Muslim (and, so what said Colin Powell) and the founder of ISIS with plans for him and Valerie Jarrett to hand over the United States to the Muslims? How would that work anyway? Would it be like giving the keys of the car to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and telling him to take it for a spin? I might be getting close to divisive speech again so I'm going to beat my inner child back into his corner and tell him to just keep quiet. We're having a grown-up conversation.

So, anyway, back to my offer. I am capable of discussing matters of policy without resort to personalities (I think). In any case, I'm willing to try but be warned, I intend to take notes and use them to hold you to what you say and I will not allow you to use “alternative facts” nor will I just take your word that you never said that even if that is what our President does. If the conversation gets surly I will demand recompense in the form of some kind of battle. I'm not very sports inclined so I will choose crossword puzzles in order to have my honor restored. We really need to rethink our prohibition on duels but perhaps limit them to things that will not demand that a life must be taken. After all, it took three duels I think to restore Andrew Jackson's honor and I believe he was actually shot a time or two. And we all know about poor Alexander Hamilton who died at the hand of Aaron Burr.

But, these are the times that try men's souls. I don't mean to plagiarize that phrase but I don't remember who to credit. Anyway, I didn't make that up. Our President (yes, our President) has brought the institutions of democracy to their knees through accusations of stupidity and threats to take on the Chinese in the South China Sea and he has humiliated the National Park Service by insisting that they photoshopped either the crowd at his inauguration or at the Women's March. Take your pick but his crowd was bigger because he said so and he could see all the way to the Washington Monument. At least he didn't claim to see all the way to Russia. And then to prove it he went to the CIA and stood in front of the stars with no name and repeated the, well, alternate fact as if to invoke their power.

So, Steve Bannon told us today to just shut up. He told our fourth estate to just shut up and listen for a while. All except Twitter which he gave permission to continue as before. And, therein lies the tactic for the loyal opposition. All that is needed is for a designated person to make an allegation, maybe on Twitter, that his wardrobe is looking a little stunted. Maybe suggest a different color or style of tie. Another photo of him pretending to sign his 4000^th executive order might do the trick. Then he could go tweet that he always knew that he could do more executive orders than Obama, massively more, more executive orders. Or that he knows how to dress and everyone else is doing it wrong. He knows because he has his own clothing line and because he is just smarter.

My Take is this. I can't wait to get to the point where these things have to be debated. One quote says that hardship creates character but another one says that it only exposes character. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that divisive?