- Is America Dead?
- Keep the candidates coming; challenge their stamina
- National Internet Access Program Needs Net Neutrality
- Fable Dies Tragically in Spelling Accident
- How long, Lord?
- Words fail...
- Trump: A reasonable request
- A wee pun is a bit o' fun
- Rural America in Crisis Due to Tr*mp Tariffs
- Toward equity, not necessarily equality
- Interior Dept. Shamed into Abandoning Fee Hike
- Net Neutrality on the Auction Block
The more I think about round robin debates the more I like the idea; perhaps like baseball; mostly in their own league (party) with occasional interleague play. Once a week from July to May rotating among broadcast and cable networks, followed by a national "jungle" or "top two" primary with runoff as necessary in June followed by a national election with all states pledging their electoral votes to the national majority winner as 11 states already do. (If you're afraid of the latter you don't believe in democracy, admit it.)
BTW, most other industrial nations have had national universal service policies for decades. It can only be done with government support, as there are vast areas with sparse population and without the required infrastructure, in which there is no potential profit in offering the service. Both democracy and free markets depend on universal access to information and ideas.
Napoleon knew more than his generals and invaded Russia before leaving his army lying frozen in the marshes. While France continued, it has ever since been a second echelon power—albeit with great wine and cheese.
Adolf Hitler knew more than his generals and dithered during preparations for invasion before Eisenhower and the Allies achieved the D-Day invasion, whereafter suicide soon became his only option. Nazi Germany ceased to exist.
Donald Trump knows more than our generals and will soon abandon our few remaining Middle East allies—especially the Kurds and potentially the majority of Afghans—to their fate, just as Nixon and Ford did in the case of the Montagnards and Hmong of Vietnam. The US survived the latter but the shame lingers; who now will stand with us when we next need help?
The gut instinct of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the administration toadies was to defend the policy. NOT ONE—from DHS Sec. Krysten Cutiepie right down to the grunts at the B.Patrol—interviewed today opened with sympathy or commiseration but went directly to blaming the victim.
The whole thing suggests a new group label. We have a flock of geese, a murder of crows, and now an embarrassment of executives.
"Behind the lilies are hundred-acre fields of corn or beans, and if you park your car and wander the field behind the lilies, you will invariably find nails, broken crockery and remnants of life where a farmhouse once stood. The lilies are all that’s left of the dreams of the optimistic family that planted the lilies and made a farm and a life on the land generations ago, only to see it lost.
"The destruction of a way of life cuts as deep now as it did back then, especially when it comes from this president. The only thing he knows about food is that it always comes served to him on a silver, or maybe gold, platter."
However, COL is meaningless without a comparison to gross domestic productivity ) per capita (GDPC). GDPC is now about $55,000/year. Of course not everyone works; GDP per WORKER (GDPW) is about $112,000 (World Bank 2016). If your family of 1-2 workers is not getting somewhere between $112K and $224K, you should be asking yourself (and your political representatives), who's getting the balance? The answer, of course, is corporate managers, successful financial speculators and the idle rich. These are political, not financial, considerations.
Unfortunately, the current political system seems to conflate the value of the person with the value of the job to enable the powerful to assert that the low earners are unworthy of a better life. Pitchforks, anyone?
Of course not all work is equally productive or valued, and one can live decently at 1/4 those numbers in the US except in the highest cost cities. Interestingly, 1/4 of GDPW turns out to be just about the $15 per hour minimum wage called for by the progressive wing of the political spectrum.
If each such worker (and all other earners) were assessed ten percent of income during working years, a pension of 1/4 of prior earnings would be easy to finance, and a modest additional personal savings plan should let even low-wage (minimum) workers have a decent retirement. It would take a generation to bring this into effect, and of course simple estimates like ten percent would need to be argued financially rather than emotionally. We have the financial strength to do such a plan; what we appear to lack is the will and the wisdom.
Actually, it's even better. Since I already speak Spanish, I can just lie around instead of doing homework!
The idea that public parks should show a profit is as public policy patently insane.
As of 2016, the National Park Service has an annual budget of about $3 billion and an estimated $12 billion maintenance backlog. The National Park Services budget is divided into two primary areas, discretionary and mandatory spending (Wikipedia). That annual budget is about $10 per citizen. For another $2 each per year (total about $1 per month per citizen) we could create a sinking fund that would clear the repair deck in about 40 years, leaving the National Parks as they were in my childhood. Maintaining that $12 fee or (saints preserve us doubling it to a whopping $24 per year could make the parks free to all forever. (Feel free to suggest a progressive income related fee structure.)
The (R)eally selfish people who came up with the fee increase idea don't care a whit about the parks. The Secretary of the Interior who oversees this is the beloved Ryan Zinke (often referred to as Who?, yes the guy who took a batallion of security agents along on his European vacation at public expense), the same guy who wants to strip mine most of North America and charge bargain rates to industry for whatever is exposed. Like most of the current Cabinet, he was appointed not as a steward but as a liquidator of the national patrimony (if this were the 19th Century I'd have added "upon the altar of Mammon," but I won't go there.)
You can still make a difference. The FCC, following the lead of their industry-tool chairman, will vote to protect corporate power and to screw you on Thursday, Dec. 14. Write your congressional representatives NOW! (https://dearfcc.org) It is VERY important that you write a personal message in the comment section; otherwise your message will be ignored as a bulk mailing. Say something about how you expect the proposed changes will harm you or your community (they will).
Average teacher salary in US (2014) is $56,383 plus benefits. With est. fringe of 25% = $70,000.
Average training period for a sworn police officer is six months; we might assume three months for limited-duty training. There is ample reason to doubt that police-training agencies could gear up for this effort, but we won't count that for now.
Cost of training = one-fourth of a teacher's annual salary plus cost of training a police officer. Averages $7,000 across the US. Total with three months teacher salary $18,500 approx. The trainees might reasonably ask for a bonus for giving up their summer vacation, but we won't count that.
Presumably the teachers accepting the risk would get combat pay, let's say 25% bonus for half their career span. Figure 25% of $70,000 for 20 years or $300,000. Of course that would raise their pensions by a commensurate amount; est. 10% rise in pension cost; we won't try to calculate that permanent cost either.
So to summarize.
- Initial costs
- N/teachers (20% of 3,000,000), 600,000.
- Initial training @ $15,500.
- Training, first year (600,000 X $15,000), approx. $9.0 billion one time.
- Annual costs thereafter
- Retraining est $2,000 + one month salary (5800/12), total @ $7,800.
- Combat bonus, $15,000.
- Total/teacher, $22,800.
- All teachers (600,000), $13.7 billion.
- Continuous training of recruits @ 600K x 1/40 = 15,000 recruits/yr @ $18,500, total $342 million/yr.
- Combined annual costs
- Recruit training, $342M.
- Armed teacher extra pay, $13.7B.
- Min. total, $13.7B+342M=$14.022 billion per year, FOREVER, NOT including hiring more teachers when an unknown number are removed from classrooms to roam the halls at all times.
- Ten year program cost $9+14=$23 billion or $2.3 billion/year. That's $115 per adult (taxpayer). You might ask your local T-bagger how he feels about that.
Ban and collect all "assault" weapons (define it yourself).
Government(s) might reimburse owners @ $400 each (currently advertised price of used AR-15 on 26 Feb 2018). (This is a good deal for most owners, whose guns are mostly hidden in closets, improperly maintained and rusting away.)
This would put a lot of money into circulation, almost entirely at a scale conducive to re-spending, which could be a boost to the economy, or perhaps equally to savings, which has lagged in recent decades.
If 10M are in circulation the one-time cost would be (400*10M)=$4 billion — about one-fifth of the armed-teacher plan — with no annual incremental cost.
To assuage anti-"Big Gub'mint" fears, there could be a federal license to carry with reasonable qualifications, e.g., an age limit; training requirement and certification; documentation while in possession; storage and protection obligations... Such a license might carry fees roughly equivalent to a passport, around $200 initially plus a periodic renewal. Further open and honest dialogue could work that out. Thus we protect the Second Amendment, as we should for a host of reasons.
Summary of Alternative
- Less expensive
- Radically reduces the likelihood of mass murder with assault rifles.
- Losers: Gun manufacturers.
- Winners: Everyone else.
- We won't count those, either, but you might want to.
The nay-sayers are probably right that nothing can entirely eliminate the possibility of mass shootings, but this is about probabilities, not metaphysics, and imperfection is no excuse for inaction.