California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Says Americans Need To Stop “Electing Idiots.”

by John Lawrence

Did the Founders design a Constitution that was idiot proof? Not according to Liz Cheney. Is this a flaw that is inherent to democracy? Not necessarily although it seems to be a flaw in the American system of democracy. There are other forms of democracy that may be more idiot proof. For instance, a democracy in which there are background requirements for political representatives such as education and experience. It is important to have a President who is educated and experienced in areas related to government. The Senate and House of Representatives also should have education and background requirements. Any corporation requires education and experience requirements for jobs. Why should the government be any different? The Hill reported:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) suggested Monday that the problem with American politics is that “we’re electing idiots.”

“Look, I think that the country right now faces hugely challenging and fundamentally important issues,” Cheney said at an event with the cultural and community center, 92nd Street Y, New York. “What we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

“I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is that Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again,” she said.

The question is how do you accomplish "not electing idiots" within the constraints of the American system? Or should the American system be redesigned to accomplish this goal? Perhaps the first item should be to educate the populace in such a way that the voting pubic contains as few idiots as possible. If the electorate is a bunch of idiots, then they will elect someone who looks like them - namely, an idiot. The second thing is that perhaps people running for office should be required to take a test, the results of which would show their knowledge of the position they aspire to whether it's the Presidency, the House or the Senate. Americans are subjected to testing all through their educational experience. Corporations that hire American workers are very interested in their test scores. They want to know whether or not the person they are hiring is an idiot. Why doesn't this apply to politicians as well? Otherwise, running for election comes down to a popularity contest and very often a blood sport. Is this the kind of person who should be running our government?

As Californians Age, They Are Being Priced Out of Housing

An man who declined to be identified brings snacks and toiletries back to his tent on First Street near Los Angeles City Hall.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

By Ryan Fonseca  Staff Writer

from the Los Angeles Times

Study traces ‘causes and consequences’ of California homelessness — and challenges myths

Good morning, and welcome to the Essential California newsletter. It’s Wednesday, June 21.

The lives of California’s unhoused population are as complex and nuanced as those of anyone else. That doesn’t sound like a radical statement, but in conversations about homelessness, it can be.

A newly released study from UC San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative aims to explore that truth with a comprehensive account of “the causes and consequences of homelessness in California,” according to its authors.

Researchers surveyed nearly 3,200 people experiencing homelessness across eight counties in the state, using their answers to create representative statewide estimates. They also conducted in-depth interviews with 365 of those participants.

The study found that nearly half (47%) of all unhoused adults in the state are 50 or older, with Black and Native American residents “dramatically overrepresented.” Notably, 41% of that share became homeless for the first time at 50 or older.

For Times columnist Anita Chabria, the report demonstrates that California’s income inequality has reached a point where “if you are older and unable to work, homelessness is a real threat throughout the Golden State.”

“As much as we want to see the average homeless person as a drug tourist dropping into too-progressive cities for the good fentanyl and lax laws ... or someone whose mental illness makes it impossible for them to live unaided, the truth is simpler — and much more devastating,” she wrote this week. “As Californians age, they are being priced out of housing.”

The study breaks down the many factors that people pointed to as contributing to their homelessness. The top reason cited was a loss or reduction of income. Researchers also broke down the primary reasons cited by both leaseholders and non-leaseholders — participants who didn’t have their name on a lease or mortgage before their most recent episode of homelessness. Non-leaseholders were more likely to report social reasons — such as conflicts with other residents or discrimination — while leaseholders pointed to economic reasons. Fleeing domestic violence was one common reason for both groups.

The authors also pointed to a few misconceptions about homelessness, including “myths of homeless migration.”

According to researchers, “90% of participants lost their last housing in California and 75% of participants live in the same county as where they were last housed.”

The research highlights the complex trajectories that lead to homelessness, but also presents compelling evidence of something advocates for the unhoused have long been saying: Poverty is in many cases the original sin. Traumatic experiences can intensify a person’s mental health and substance use — which affect an array of people regardless of their housing status. But add the stress and trauma of living on the edge of financial ruin and a vicious spiral begins to take shape.

The authors also highlighted several solutions in the form of government policy, namely confronting the lack of affordable housing for Californians living in extreme poverty.

“In 2023, California had only 24 units of housing available and affordable for every 100 extremely low-income households,” the study states.

Recommendations include:

·     Mitigating the often-sudden housing loss people experience by investing in more rent subsidies and mediation to avoid evictions

·     Responding more swiftly when people lose housing to connect them with vital services and lessen their time on the streets

·     Increasing access to substance use treatments and harm reduction service outreach

You can explore the full report here.

Off the Top of My Head

Is Voting a Necessary Component of Democracy?

by John Lawrence

Many people consider voting the sine qua non defining characteristic of democracy. However, the inventors of democracy, the ancient Greeks, did not. Their legislative body, the Council of 500, was chosen not be voting but by lot, in other words randomly. Arguably, random selection is more democratic since it guarantees a legislative body which actually represents and reflects all of the people. Voting, at least in the US, does not result in a legislature that reflects the actual composition of the electorate because the candidates need a lot of money even to get on the ballot. Random selection requires no money, just a complete list of all citizens. A legislature which reflects the actual composition of the electorate is more democratic than one that reflects only the composition of the moneyed class. Therefore, voting must be disassociated from democracy in the larger sense. So let's ask the question how is the Chinese legislature, the National People's Congress, chosen? It is chosen by the people by voting although the nominees are chosen by the Communist Party. It could be argued and debated how well the National People's Congress reflects the actual composition of the electorate. It could also be argued which system, the American system or the Chinese system is more democratic in the sense that the national legislative body represents and reflects the actual composition of their respective electorates. My guess is that the American two party system is only slightly more democratic than the Chinese one party system. Someone should do a study and comparison.

In addition to getting money out of politics, random selection, which is also known as sortition, would end the districting system and gerrymandering. The House would reflect the composition of the US electorate. Instead of an elaborate system of voting and majority rule, all you would need is a data base of all 330 million Americans and a program for random selection. Voting systems in and of themselves are controversial (which of the several available voting systems should be used), and majority rule is notorious for leaving out minorities.  The US system know as first past the post practically determines that the US will be a two party system. Third parties contribute the "spoiler effect," which we've seen all to often in Presidential politics, for example, when Ross Perot and Ralph Nader ran as third party candidates. They just take votes away from the party that they are closer to on the political spectrum helping the other party to win. The Chinese have a one party system and the US has a two party system which is probably only somewhat more democratic than the Chinese system if the measure of democraticness is that the legislature represents a reflection of all the people. The European parliamentary system is a multiparty system where minorities are better represented than in the US or Chinese systems, and hence, is more democratic than either of them. A further benefit of random selection us that extremists and extreme parties are unlikely to be over represented in the outcome. In fact political parties would have no reason to exist if the legislature was chosen by sortition.

Rousseau says in The Social Contract, " 'Election by lot,' says Montesquieu, 'is of the nature of democracy. ' I agree , but how is it so? 'The lot,' he continues, 'is a mode of election which mortifies no on; it leaves every citizen a reasonable hope of serving his country.' "Montesquieu , by the way was one of the chief architects of society that the Founders took as an example in their design of the US Constitution. Sortition was used in the Athenian democracy. With few exceptions, all magistrates were chosen by lot, beginning with the archons in 487–486 BC; likewise the Boule (council) of 500 and the juries of the law courts were chosen by lot. Sortition is used in the American system for jury selection.

My reform of the American system would be #1) The legislature should be chosen by sortition to serve 4 year terms. Pay would be high enough to induce the average person to want to serve. The only requirement would be US citizenship. #2) The Senate would be chosen by sortition among the people who met certain educational and experiential background requirements. The term would be 6 years. #3) The Supreme Court would be chosen from among the people with even more stringent background requirements especially in law and government. The term would be 8 years. #4) The President would be chosen by means of an electoral system with an advanced method of voting like approval voting. The electoral college would be abolished. The President would serve for 4 years with the possibility of serving two terms if the people elected him again. At any level of political participation people could opt out of the pool of which otherwise they might be randomly selected. We have already seen in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump how extremists can be elected by purveying false information and outright lies creating a cult following. The elimination of political parties altogether would transform politics from the Chinese one party system, the American two party system and the European multiparty system to in fact a more democratic no party system.

Putting a Face to a Statistic: How I Became Homeless

In the span of three years, I lost my job, home and family, checking off five of the six primary causes of homelessness. This is my story.  

 

by DeForrest (DeDe) Hancock February 13, 2023, from Voice of San Diego

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

A homeless encampment in downtown on Nov. 11, 2022. / Photo by Ariana Drehsler

DeForrest (DeDe) Hancock is a senior native of San Diego and currently resides in City Heights. A member of Voices of Our City Choir, Voices of Dignity, HEAL-Homeless Experienced Advocacy Leadership, UCSF-Benioff Homeless Housing Initiative Lived Expertise Advisory Board and UCSD-HEAL Research Collaboration. 

Has anyone ever said to you, “When I grow up, I want to be homeless.”  

Homelessness is not a new issue but unfortunately a rapidly growing population in the United States today. Research shows that some of the top causes of homelessness are loss of a job, money issues, cost of housing and disability. 

This isn’t just a statistic, though.  

I was raised in the Valencia Park community from the age of 5. I obtained a bachelor’s degree in psychology from UC San Diego Revelle College in 1977. I worked at a company for 10 years before getting terminated in 2006.  

Throughout those years, my work was consistently evaluated as above average and outstanding. But for reasons beyond my control, my cause of termination denied me access to unemployment benefits.  

---

Help us close our end-of-fiscal-year gap with a contribution today and your donation will be matched.

Every dollar helps AND every dollar will be doubled by a generous donor.

Support Voice of San Diego's Newsroom

---

This led to me losing the home of eight years that I purchased as a single mom. I also lost a separate investment property. Around that time, my mother passed away. My 13-year-old son and I moved into the family home which had been mortgage free for over 25 years. Believing that my unemployment case would be resolved within a year, I secured a loan to cover living expenses. I was unable to find an attorney who would accept my wrongful termination case. The result was, I lost my family home of 50 years and my 13-year-old son, and I became homeless by foreclosure-eviction on Nov. 10, 2009. My journey ended with my early social security retirement income following my 62nd birthday. 

During the period that I was homeless, 2009 to 2016, I came to believe that we are all ordinary people simply each living out the scripts of our lives. Some of our scripts include life-challenges which provide lived experience to build the expertise and skills for survival.  

There are several myths about the causes of homelessness and the characterization of homeless individuals. But, I have yet to know of any human being ever saying:  

“When I grow up, I want to be homeless; I want to have an addiction, medical or physical issue which makes me vulnerable; I want to live on the street where I am not welcome or wanted. I want to be a burden to my family, friends, and society.”      

These myths are debunked by the reality on the ground. The fact is, drug use and addiction follow traumatic experiences as coping mechanisms and are not necessarily a cause of homelessness.   

Survey research presented during a forum held on April 28, 2022, by the San Diego Housing Federation’s HEAL (Homeless Experienced Advocacy Leadership Network) identified the primary causes of homelessness.  

The top six causes are: Loss of job (24 percent); money issues (17 percent); other (14 percent); cost of housing (12 percent); Disability (9 percent); loss of family member (7 percent). Alcohol & Drug Use is 7th on the list at only 5 percent. And homelessness caused by jail or prison time is 10th on the chart at 2 percent.   

In terms of absolute numbers, California has more than half (53 percent) of all unsheltered people in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released in 2020, nearly a quarter of all people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity live in either New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Jose & Santa Clara and San Diego. That number continues to rise locally. Unlike New York City, California’s homeless people are said to be sleeping rough. Research found that an estimated 71.1 percent of the homeless in California are unsheltered, compared to just 4.4 percent in New York City. This data clearly indicates that there are workable solutions to end homelessness if we care enough to pursue those solutions. 

I dream and believe all things are possible. My dream today: In my lifetime I will witness the end of poverty and homelessness. 

The truth is we may never hear anyone say: When I grow up, I want to be homeless. But today I believe there is a spiritual calling for some of us to “serve the least of them!” And with honor, I am blessed to know I am among those chosen to serve them by growing up to be one of them! 

Off the Top of My Head

Who Would Have Thunk It: China is the World's Leading Exporter of Cars!

by John Lawrence

In an article by Fareed Zakaria entitled, The rest of the world doesn’t see China the same way we do, there is this: "Ten years ago, China exported a relatively small number of cars. Today, it is the world’s leading exporter of automobiles, handily ousting Japan from that position. It is especially strong in electric vehicles. Two of every three EVs made in the world are made in China." So far Chinese cars have not shown up in the US, but they will. American car manufacturers are playing catch up. "As you enter a car showroom in Berlin, you see what looks like a Bugatti or a Ferrari, except more stylish. It’s an EP9, a top-of-the-line race car that has been sold to a handful of customers for about $3 million each. The company behind it is Nio, one of China’s new carmakers, which is going to take the world by storm."

The economies of the western world including the US and Europe are inextricably intertwined with that of China. The difference is that the US under Biden's leadership is taking a semi-belligerent attitude towards China while Europe is taking a much more deferential and mutually respectful approach. Biden's latest gaffe is referring to Xi Jinping as a "dictator" just after Secretary of State Antony Blinken just returned from China having tried to stop the downward spiral of US-China relationship. One of the problems is that the US insists on insulting China and the Chinese leadership. They really can't afford to do that any more if they want to create a mutually respectful relationship. Respect in nation to nation relationships is of the utmost importance. It could be argued that the lack of respect toward Russia was a precursor to the war in Ukraine. What is true among individuals - that mutual respect is important for creating and maintaining salubrious relationships is important - is equally true with respect to nations. Why doesn't the US leadership get this?

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown explained the European dilemma. “Europe needs an industrial policy, but it cannot afford to mimic the [Biden] administration’s protectionism,” he told me. “For Europe, trade is vital; its prosperity is dependent on trade with the rest of the world, including China, in a way that America’s is not. [Unlike America, Europe] imports energy and is not self-sufficient. Despite the surface agreement across the Atlantic, this could become a growing divide.” He acknowledged that the Biden administration has made moves to expand trade ties, but he expressed concern that all of them are bilateral or regional efforts that might undercut global trade. They come, he said, “at the expense of any real discussion of what a modern multilateralist order would look like.” Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former prime minister of Denmark, concurred. “Europe cannot divorce itself from China,” she explained. “That would be the end of globalization. That is why we want to de-risk, not decouple.” “De-risking,” a term famously used by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, is the hottest buzzword in diplomacy these days. Even the Biden administration now says it also wants to de-risk rather than decouple. But many I spoke with in Europe said they worry that this is just a rhetorical change and that U.S. policies — and Chinese responses — will keeping moving the ratchet up.

"Kishore Mahbubani, the former Singaporean diplomat and author of “The Asian 21st Century,” pointed out that discussions in the West often forget that the world’s growth is mostly coming from Asia. He used his own region as an example. In 2000, Japan’s economy was about eight times larger than Southeast Asia’s. In about three years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is projected to be the same size economically as Japan. The largest trade relationship in the world is between China and ASEAN — almost $1 trillion. And ASEAN countries cannot grow without open and vibrant trade, especially with China." So the world is changing. The US is not changing with it, but instead is trying to maintain its grip on being the world's leading superpower. Criticizing other nations based on their forms of government is leaving the US open to the criticism that its foreign policy is subject to change with respect to other nations based on the election cycle and an administration coming into power every four years that has diametrically opposed views on the subject. China by contrast maintains a consistent approach over much longer periods so that once a successful policy has been implemented, it will probably remain in effect indefinitely and not be subject to an election cycle which can swerve back and forth and even spin out of control as it did on January 6, 2020.

The US also could be exposed to the criticism that any fool can become President as was the case in the election of 2016, not to mention any Congress person, while in China the best and brightest are usually promoted to the highest positions in government.

Off the Top of My Head

Can a Puma Be Raised to Prefer Plant Based Meat?

by John Lawrence

Actually, this is a good question. If meat eaters could be trained to eat plant based meat, they would no longer be predators. If lions can lie down with lambs, then maybe there is even hope for the human race. In fact some animals that would attack each other in the wild, when raised together as babies, become the best of friends. Anthony, the lion, was brought to “Keepers of the Wild” animal sanctuary as a sick cub after being auctioned off in Virginia, and Riley, the coyote, was rescued by Arizona game and fish. Both were just over one month old when they met. Coyotes and lions are social animals, and Riley and Anthony grew quite fond of one another almost immediately. So they grew up, not to eat each other, but to be friends. Does this portend some hope for the human race? If babies of all races, religions and nationalities grew up together, maybe they would continue to have mutually constructive relationships as adults. Perhaps this would be a way that world peace could be attained. No more predator and prey relationships. No more friend and enemy relationships. It's worth a try. It would be a great sociological experiment, and there is nothing weird about it. It would only entail play dates for children of all races, nationalities and religions as they grew up. As they grew older, they would grow into an age appropriate understanding of their friends' backgrounds. If animals can form these kind of relationships, probably so could humans.

After photographer Isobel Springett, took in an abandoned fawn, it was almost immediately adopted by Springett’s Great Dane, Kate. Pip clearly feels very strongly for her canine caretaker, and even though Pip joined a herd, she still finds time to spend with Kate. Perhaps animals can lead the way. Perhaps they can be the prime movers towards a more mutually beneficial society. Perhaps there would no more be predators and prey. What would this portend for the human race? One thing it portends is that, in order to end war and conflict, everyone would have to be adequately fed with a plant based diet. As long as some people have nothing and others have seemingly everything, there will always be war as the underdogs try to redress the balance. If everyone is relatively well off, the incentive for altering the status quo by violence and force is greatly diminished.

In a hidden realm at the end of the world, amidst the massive ice mountains of Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park, condors soar, colorful caracaras keep a sharp eye out for prey and vivid pink flamingos make a theatrical appearance. This kingdom is the stronghold of the puma, a large mountain lion that hunts for guanacos – cousins of llamas – as they roam from the valleys to the hillsides. Follow the fate of Solitaria, a female puma in her prime. The mother of four cubs, she hunts and teaches her young how to live in this extraordinary landscape. Narrated by Uma Thurman. This is a beautiful story about a successful huntress who is so tender and loving with her four kittens, but is relentless when it comes to the life and death struggle with guanacos. The guanacos must be eternally vigilant for any sign that there might be a puma lurking and stalking them. It's an athletic contest that occurs on a daily basis. Both kinds of animals must use their entire skill set to stay alive and to eat. Guanacos eat a plant based diet, and pumas eat guanacos. Could pumas raised from babyhood with baby guanacos grow up to see each other as friends instead of as rivals and enemies? Could pumas be trained to a plant based diet? The implications for human survival and the survival of the human species might be significant.

'Bombshell': Internal Docs Highlight Flaws in Student Debt Case Now Before Supreme Court

 

Activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on February 28, 2023 as the justices began hearing oral arguments in a pair of cases on student debt relief.

(Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

"These emails confirm what every honest observer has long understood: Missouri's lawsuit is just a partisan hack job aimed at getting the right-wing attorney general's name in the paper," said one expert.

by Brett Wilkins

from Common Dreams, June 16, 2023

As the U.S. Supreme Court nears a decision on President Joe Biden's student debt relief proposal, an advocacy group on Friday published internal records revealing the "anxiety and confusion" of staffers at a loan company critics say is being spuriously used by Republican attorneys general in their attack on the president's plan.

Internal documents from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA)—a private state-chartered lender—obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) under Missouri's Sunshine Law show that agency employees were confused by then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt's lawsuit and argument that Biden's relief plan could harm the company.

"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside."

That dubious claim—an independent report showed that not only would MOHELA not be harmed by Biden's proposal, it would make more money—forms the purported basis for MOHELA's standing in the suit, Biden v. Nebraska. Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina are suing the administration, alleging that its debt forgiveness plan violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and Administrative Procedure Act.

MOHELA is not even a plaintiff in the case, a fact that critics including progressive U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) have cited in calling for the dismissal of the suit—one of two student debt relief cases the high court is expected to rule on sometime this month.

"These emails confirm what every honest observer has long understood: Missouri's lawsuit is just a partisan hack job aimed at getting the right-wing attorney general's name in the paper," Ella Azoulay, SBPC's research and policy analyst, said in a statement.

"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside," Azoulay added.

"Just out of curiosity, is MOHELA apart [sic] of the lawsuit going on to prevent the loan forgiveness?" wrote one employee in an email. "Are we the bad guys?”

Another staffer wrote that Schmitt's lawsuit"has nothing to do with us,except that they're using the [Missouri] consumers harm as standing."

Indeed, in an October 2022 letter to Bush—who had inquired about the lender's relationship with the attorney general's office—MOHELA said its "executives were not involved in the decision" by Schmitt to sue the Biden administration.

"I think MOHELA was opposed to this move, but couldn't do anything about it," wrote yet another staffer. "The Mo. state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they're making us look bad by filing this not only with Mo. on it, but especially bad because they filed it in Mo."

During oral arguments in February, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority signaled it is poised to side with Republicans challenging the debt cancellation program and strike it down.

Last week, a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers—Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)—implored the Biden administration to have a backup plan to aid student borrowers if the Supreme Court kills its debt cancellation proposal.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

 

Brett Wilkins

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

GOP Accused of Breaking Debt Ceiling Deal and 'Threatening a Government Shutdown'

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) speaks during a press conference on December 14, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

by Jake Johnson

 

from Common Dreams, June 16, 2023

 

"It appears that threatening a Republican default was insufficient and that the majority is now intent on driving a partisan appropriations process."

 

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee accused her Republican colleagues on Thursday of increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown by approving spending numbers below the levels set under the bipartisan debt ceiling agreement, which hasn't even been law for two weeks.

In an appearance on CNN, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said House Republicans have already "walked away from this deal," pointing to the House Appropriations Committee's party-line vote Thursday to set next year's spending at fiscal year 2022 levels—a substantial cut and well below the topline set by the debt ceiling law.

But the committee's proposed cuts would apply only to nonmilitary spending, which includes programs related to education, environmental protection, child care, and more.

As HuffPost's Jonathan Nicholson reported Thursday, the Republican-controlled appropriations panel "stuck with the defense number in the debt limit deal, meaning the total government funding pie would be smaller than what Democrats thought they’d agreed to only weeks ago―and the slice of that pie available for agencies and programs outside of the military would be even smaller."

DeLauro stressed Thursday that she voted against the debt ceiling agreement because of its proposed domestic spending cuts.

But unlike Republicans, she added, "I'm willing to work within the framework of the agreement."

"The issue will be how long will the Republicans try to hold this process hostage, and what kind of harm will be done in the interim," DeLauro said. "We have an obligation because what we can't do is have the government shut down. And that is potentially where the Republican majority wants to take us: to a government shutdown."

The federal government will shut down if funding legislation isn't passed by September 30, which marks the end of the current fiscal year.

The debt ceiling agreement negotiated by President Joe Biden and Republican leaders includes a mechanism aimed at making a shutdown less likely, but it's not clear it will succeed as members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus signal that they would welcome a shutdown.

If Congress doesn't approve all of its appropriations bills by January 1, 2024, the newly approved debt ceiling law will kick off "a process to institute a government funding bill for the remainder of the fiscal year that would put in place a 1% spending cut from fiscal 2023 levels for all defense and domestic spending," The Washington Postexplained earlier this month.

Those across-the-board cuts would exceed the proposed spending reductions under the debt ceiling deal—though the process would also prevent a transfer of billions of dollars out of the Internal Revenue Service's budget.

"The idea is that the potential cuts to defense would motivate Republicans to complete the annual spending process and the cuts to domestic programs would similarly motivate Democrats," the Post noted. "The spending cuts, however, would not be automatic. The House and Senate would still have to vote on them, but theoretically leaders would compile the votes for it to pass to abide by the agreement. However, there is some skepticism this would be a smooth process."

"This doesn't just mean promises broken—MAGA Republican extremism and chaos now includes threatening a government shutdown this fall."

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing earlier this week, DeLauro slammed her Republican counterparts for abandoning the debt ceiling agreement and proposing funding allocations that are unacceptable to Democrats, heightening the chances of a government shutdown that would disrupt critical public services and programs.

"It appears that threatening a Republican default was insufficient and that the majority is now intent on driving a partisan appropriations process that will steer us into a prolonged continuing resolution at best, but more likely a government shutdown," said DeLauro.

The cuts proposed by House Republicans, the Connecticut Democrat continued, "would kick 300,000 children out of child care and Head Start; make healthcare more expensive and less accessible for two million vulnerable people who rely on community health centers, and deny access to care for opioid use disorder for 28,000 people."

"The ink is barely dry on the bipartisan budget agreement, yet we are here to consider the Republican majority's spending agenda that completely reneges on the compromises struck less than two weeks ago," DeLauro added.

But Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that she views the spending levels proposed in the debt limit agreement as "a ceiling, not a floor"—a position that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has endorsed.

"The allocations before us reflect the change members on my side of the aisle want to see by returning spending to responsible levels," Granger said Thursday, emphasizing that the bloated military budget would be shielded from cuts under the committee's proposed spending allocations.

"With just months before the end of the fiscal year, we must not delay," Granger said. "We need to work quickly to have all twelve bills signed into law by September 30th."

Other House Republicans haven't expressed such urgency—and in fact appear perfectly content to shut down the federal government in pursuit of massive spending cuts.

"We shouldn't fear a government shutdown," Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, toldPunchbowl this week. "If we shut it down in order to try to bring fiscal stability and fiscal solvency, that will save the country from an economic and fiscal standpoint for our kids and grandkids."

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) voiced the same sentiment, telling the outlet that he is "not afraid of shutdowns."

The New York Timesreported Thursday that after "facing a rebellion by hard-right Republicans over the debt limit agreement, Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team blindsided Democrats this week by setting allocations for the 12 annual spending bills at 2022 levels, about $119 billion less than the $1.59 trillion allowed for in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling."

Those allocations were then rubberstamped by the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, setting the stage for a tumultuous and potentially damaging spending fight in the coming weeks.

"Last month, Kevin McCarthy and House Republican leaders made a deal with President Biden. Now they are trying to break it," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said Thursday. "This doesn't just mean promises broken—MAGA Republican extremism and chaos now includes threatening a government shutdown this fall."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

Jake Johnson

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

 

Off the Top of My Head

Why Americans Want Republicans and Democrats to Alternate Election Cycles

by John Lawrence

Democratic Presidents get elected and hand out a bag full of goodies, but there's no plan to pay for them. Then the American people elect Republicans because Republicans say in effect, "You don't have to pay for the goodies the Democrats gave you, and, furthermore, we'll even give you a tax cut." So is there any wonder why Democrats and Republicans alternate being elected? Or why the national debt keeps increasing? Goodies not paid for followed by tax cuts followed by more goodies followed by more tax cuts. The American people are wise to keep alternating these election cycles between Republicans and Democrats. Now that the Republican accusation of "tax and spend" aimed at Democrats has been followed by Democrat protestations of "tax the rich and spend", the wind has been taken out of Republican sails. Most of the national debt has been racked up by Republican tax cuts which mainly have benefited the rich. But as long as the Republican middle class has gotten teenie weenie tax cuts, they're more than satisfied. With Trump as their champion, Trump could even reduce taxes on the rich and increase them on the middle class and the Republican middle class would still love him. He's very special.

So why is the increasing national debt even an issue? For sure it never has to be paid off by our children or grandchildren ad infinitum. There are 2 reasons though why it is important. #1) The interest on the national debt is a budget item and it keeps increasing crowding out other budgetary items. #2) The Treasury debt assets held by other countries represent funds that can be used to purchase US assets. Of these #1 is probably the most worrisome. Interest on the debt could be controlled by the Fed and the Treasury working together. The Fed can buy Treasuries thus reducing the amount on the market or held by other entities. When interest is paid on Treasuries held by the Fed, it reverts to the Treasury Department so basically Treasuries held by the Fed are interest free - they cost the government nothing! Secondly, the Treasury Department can set the interest or coupon values for Treasuries very low. There is no need to raise the rates paid on Treasuries to reflect market interest rates because there is no need to sell any particular amount of Treasuries. Treasuries are just a safe warehouse for funds regardless of their coupon values and so there will always be a market for them, and the Fed can always by any unsold Treasuries. This is just a policy that has been in effect for years called quantitative easing. It's a tried and proven policy, and there is nothing new or revolutionary about it.

So let's examine the composition of the national debt. Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently. The nation’s fiscal pictured changed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history reducing revenues by the equivalent of $19 trillion over a decade in today’s terms. Although Congress raised taxes in many of the subsequent years of the Reagan administration to claw back close to half the revenue loss, the equivalent of $10 trillion of the president’s 1981 tax cut remained. The George W. Bush administration, empowered by a trifecta in 2001, enacted sweeping tax cuts that will have cost more than $8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. These legislative changes—the Bush and Trump tax cuts—are responsible for more than 90 percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date, and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of the debt ratio increase in the future. The Trump tax cuts cost $7.8 trillion. The national debt is approximately 32 trillion,and, toting up the figures listed above, it can be seen that approximately $26 trillion of this is due to the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts.

So politicians of both parties have colluded to give the American public everything they want: goodies plus a free lunch when it comes to taxes. American voters just need to alternate administrations! Americans don't vote for a President based on all he's done for the American people. Case in point: after all Joe Biden has done for the American people (in terms of goodies), Americans will probably elect a Republican President in 2024 so they won't have to pay for it. They will get a tax cut instead. And tax cuts are the gifts that keep on giving year after year ... mainly for the rich! Some might say this phenomenon of incentivizing voters to alternate the party in power is a flaw in American democracy. Keeping the same party over several election cycles might result in more consistency in government policy, but democracy is messy. The question is is it too messy. Is there a better way?

Off the Top of My Head

The Difference Between Chinese and US Philosophy

by John Lawrence

Western philosophy is predicated on the individual and the philosophy that the best society is one in which the individual is completely and totally free. Freedom of the individual is the bedrock of the US Constitution which spells out individual rights but not individual responsibilities. Freedom is spelled out in John Stuart Mill's book On Liberty, but it goes back even further than that all the way to the life of Jesus who, as demonstrated in the New King James version of Luke, when his mother was looking for him famously said to her,  “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” So for Jesus the freedom to pursue his career took precedence over familial responsibilities. Chinese philosophy places the emphasis on the fact that familial responsibilities should take precedence over individual freedom. That is the basic philosophical difference between US and Chinese philosophy. Confucius, who is the penultimate philosopher for Chinese society, had a different view regarding the relations of human beings to society. According to Roger T. Ames, Theorizing the Person in Confucian Ethics,"How or in what way (dao) do persons in their roles become consummately humane (ren)? This was the perennial Confucian question asked explicitly in all of the Four Books: in the Great Learning, in the Analects of Confucius, in the Mencius, and again in the Zhongyong. And from the time of Confucius onward, the answer was a moral, aesthetic, and ultimately religious one. Persons (necessarily plural) become humane by cultivating those thick, intrinsic relations that constitute our initial conditions that locate the trajectory of our life narrative - its whence and whither - within family, community, and cosmos."

The Chinese emphasis is on harmony and stability whether at the familial level or at the societal level. Western society emphasizes individual liberty in the hope that the societal level will take care of itself. The US Constitution emphasizes individual rights; there is no mention of individual responsibilities. There is the hope that individuals competing among themselves will end up with the result that society will flourish, but there is no direct connection as there is in Chinese philosophy. Article 53 of the Chinese Constitution states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the Constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property, observe discipline in the workplace, observe public order, and respect social morality." Article 54 states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland's security, honor or interests."

While the Chinese Constitution also grants political rights such as freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, and religion and also economic rights, the Constitution also emphasizes obligations and responsibilities. Article 51 states: "When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People's Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state, society or collectives, or infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."

There is an emphasis on order, social morality, not infringing on the interests of others or society in general. Americans find this emphasis on social cohesiveness and stability too restraining and inhibiting of their rights as guaranteed in the American Constitution. The US Constitution's emphasis on individual rights without a concomitant emphasis on responsibilities has produced major instabilities in American society. The fall back position for the US is complete dependence on the rule of law and the preservation of American institutions rather than a libertarian view of freedom. Basically, the US, in order to preserve US democracy has had to come up with an almost Chinese position regarding societal stability. The January 6 insurrection and subsequent indulgence in free speech by certain actors to and beyond the point of truth telling has resulted in a continuing threat to US democracy. Certain members of American society are pushing Constitutional guarantees of free speech and gun rights to the point of undermining US democracy in general. Perhaps the American Constitution needs to be rethunk or at least amended. The Republican party threatens the destruction of American society unless they get their way.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Moving Forward With Solution to Homeless Problem

by John Lawrence

The San Diego Union reported:

"The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 Tuesday [June 13, 2023] to adopt a controversial policy to ban homeless encampments on public property after hearing hours of public testimony.

"The ordinance was supported by Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, who proposed it, and Councilmembers Marni von Wilpert, Jennifer Campbell, Raul Campillo and Joe LaCava.

"Mayor Todd Gloria also supported what they referred to as an unsafe camping ordinance, with he and Whitburn saying it would address a public safety issue while also helping to get homeless people off the street and into a shelter and connected to services."

In approximate tandem with this ordinance is the City's plan to provide safe sleeping and camping areas and also to buy 3 motels and convert them to housing for the homeless. Father Joe also plans to build a high rise with additional rooms. The problem is that these additional housing units and camping areas are not ready yet. So this ordinance and the plan to provide additional shelter units will have to be somewhat compromised until the additional units are available. The opposition to the ordinance seemed to be based mainly on the fact that the additional units are not immediately available. The larger question is do the homeless have an unconditional right to live on public sidewalks which trumps the rights of downtown residents and business owners who also would like to use those sidewalks in a clean and safe manner. The answer in my mind is no they do not have an unconditional right to use the sidewalks as living areas. If I went downtown and set up a stand selling something, anything, I would be arrested if I did not have a license. However, homeless advocates would argue that the homeless have an unlimited right to sleep wherever they please on public sidewalks.

Finally, I think the Mayor and the City Council are taking a serious approach to this problem after farting around for decades. It amounts to government admitting that people have a right to housing - public housing or social housing, whatever you want to call it - something that American governments at all levels have never before been willing to concede. Once the units the City has promised come online, they need to expand that program since the proposed units are unlikely to be a once and for all solution. As rents are continuing to increase, the City has to be in the business of providing the SROs that the free market used to provide and now doesn't. Getting people off the streets and into housing or safe camping and parking areas with proper sanitation and other services accomplishes not only more humane conditions for the homeless. It prevents San Diego from becoming a tourist desert. Also residents and businesses will be moving out if the streets cannot be returned to their safe and proper usages. People living and running businesses downtown should have rights too. This argument that the new City ordinance is criminalizing homelessness is entirely bogus. If shelter beds or other accommodations are available, the homeless should be forced to take advantage of them IMHO. On the other hand,to the extent that these resources are not available, they should be cut some slack. That does not mean an unlimited right to park their tents wherever they please.

I noted the story of the parent pushing a stroller who was almost run over by a car because they could not use the blocked public sidewalk. I had a similar experience on Commercial street when my car was almost run over by the San Diego Trolley. The fact that the City will be providing SRO type rooms and other accommodations for the homeless as well as social services does not mean that that will be permanent housing for the contemporary homeless. The social workers will be attempting to reintegrate if possible currently homeless persons and families back into normal society. That means that they will be trying to find them jobs and get them living accommodations that they can pay for in the mainstream of society. Problem is that rents are so expensive that it will be impossible for many people, even if they have a job, to provide housing for themselves especially in San Diego where housing prices and rents are continuing their upward cost progression. That's why the next step for the City should be to do something about affordable housing. This means that the City needs to counteract the free market with respect to housing so that people who are reintegrated into society can at least function within the parameters of that society. The free market tendency for rents to keep on rising needs to be counteracted by the public sector. The free market will continue to make housing unaffordable which will result in more people becoming homeless. What is happening is that hedge funds are buying up housing units, rehabilitating them to some extent and turning them into rental units if they aren't rental units already thus driving up rents. People who in prior years could afford to buy a home now can't in the current environment. This process is turning more and more would be home owners into renters and renters who are devoting more and more of their income to paying rent.

The only way children of long time San Diego residents can buy homes today is if the parents can convert some of the equity in their homes to a down payment on the child's home so that they end up with a mortgage they can afford which is something I was able to do. I bought into the San Diego real estate market exactly 50 years ago for a house that I paid 3% of the market value of that same house today! There are companies that will make a home equity investment in your house which means that they will loan you money that you can use as a down payment on a child's house if that's the way you decide to use that money. There are no monthly payments. When the contract period - which can be as long as 30 years - is up, the house must be sold or the contract settled in some other way and the home equity investment must be repaid in proportion to the equity increase in value over that time period. Since I will probably not be here in 30 years, my heir, who can also inherit the contract, will sell the property and have to split the profits with the home investment company. Meanwhile, the property she bought with the down payment they provided and with a mortgage she can afford is increasing in equity. It's a pretty good solution, but only available to people who bought into the San Diego market when prices were cheap. The Home Equity Investment is like a reverse mortgage, but there is no age restriction and it can be used in conjunction with a rental property.

Washington's $849 Million Capital Gains Windfall Shows 'Taxing the Rich Is a Really Good Idea'

 

Activists demand higher taxes on the rich during a demonstration on May 17, 2021 in Tampa, Florida.

(Photo: Gerardo Mora/Getty Images for MoveOn)

"Hey, hey! What we knew would happen: Make the wealthiest pay their fair share and it finances investments in education, transportation, and more," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

by Brett Wilkins

from Common Dreams, May 26, 2023

Proponents of progressive taxation on Friday pointed to data showing Washington state stands poised to reap $849 million in revenue during the first year of its capital gains tax as proof that taxing the rich works—and could serve as a template for federal legislation.

The Seattle Timesreports that when Washington state lawmakers passed this fiscal year's budget, they anticipated collecting $248 million in revenue from the 7% tax on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds, and certain other assets above $250,000.

However, the legislators were pleasantly surprised when figures showed the state has collected over $600 million more than that.

While the amount collected could change after around 2,500 taxpayers who applied for extensions file their returns, progressives welcomed the windfall that will fund public schools, early childhood education, and building and repairing schools across the state.

"Hey, hey! What we knew would happen: Make the wealthiest pay their fair share and it finances investments in education, transportation, and more," tweeted Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

Jayapal touted federal legislation she introduced with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in 2021—the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act—that would levy a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts above $50 million, plus a 1% annual surtax on billionaires.

An analysis by University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that the legislation would bring in at least $3 trillion in revenue over 10 years without raising taxes on 99.95% of American households worth less than $50 million.

Last month, Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) introduced the For the 99.5% Act, which would impose a 45% tax on estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million, a 50% tax on estates worth between $10 million and $50 million, a 55% tax on estates worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 65% tax on estates valued at over $1 billion.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are trying to repeal the estate tax entirely—and pass other tax policies to serve the rich.

Back at the state level, California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, and Hawaii have also introduced wealth tax bills this year, while Washington's law was upheld by that state's Supreme Court in March.

"If the federal government won't act," California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-24) said while introducing a wealth tax bill in January, "we the states will."

---

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

---

Brett Wilkins

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Off the Top of My Head

Interest on the Debt or the Whole National Debt Could Be Wiped Out by the Fed Tomorrow

by John Lawrence

One of the largest components of the Federal budget is interest on the debt. But the fact is that interest rates on Treasuries don't have to go up when the Fed raises interest rates. The Fed raises interest rates by adjusting the Federal Funds Rate. The Federal Funds Rate is one of the Federal Reserve’s key tools for guiding U.S. monetary policy. Here’s how it works: Customers deposit money at banks, and those deposits provide banks with the capital needed for extending loans and other forms of credit to their customers. Regulators require that banks and other depository institutions keep a certain percentage of their total capital in reserve, to help guarantee their stability and solvency. Banks often need to borrow money from other financial institutions overnight to meet regulators’ reserve requirements—or they may end up with excess reserve capital to lend out to their peers. The federal funds rate provides a reference for institutions as they are borrowing or lending reserves. A bond issuer such as the Treasury Department decides on the coupon rate for its bonds based on prevalent market interest rates, among other things, at the time of the issuance. So the Treasury Department has complete control over the coupon at the time of the issuance of the bond. It doesn't need to consult the market or the Fed or the secondary market for Treasuries which is the market in which Treasuries are traded after they are auctioned off originally. Furthermore, it does not have to rely on the primary market either to sell a sufficient amount of Treasuries so the government can pay its bills. That's because the Fed can buy any unsold Treasuries and just place them on its balance sheet. The Fed buys and sells Treasuries all the time.

All monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve--including buying and selling securities--are made independently of the borrowing decisions of the federal government and are intended solely to fulfill the mandate set out for the Federal Reserve by law--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The Federal Reserve purchases Treasury securities held by the public through a competitive bidding process. The Federal Reserve does not purchase new Treasury securities directly from the U.S. Treasury, and Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury securities from the public are not a means of financing the federal deficit.

In financing the federal deficit, the federal government borrows from the public by issuing Treasury securities, which are sold at auction according to a schedule that is published quarterly. The Treasury determines the types and amounts of Treasury securities sold at auction with the goal of achieving the lowest financing costs for the federal government over time. The Federal Reserve does not participate in competitive bidding at Treasury auctions, and the Treasury's debt management decisions are not influenced by the Federal Reserve's purchases of Treasury securities in secondary markets.

When the Fed was goosing the economy with quantitative easing, QE, it bought mortgage backed securities and also Treasuries. Quantitative easing refers to the fact that the Fed bought up ill performing or bankrupt assets held by private banking institutions like Collateralized Debt Obligations, CDOs, which ere worthless mortgages packaged together, for cash which was then injected into the bank. Presto chango, now the bank was healthy again instead of being burdened by these worthless CDOs. When QE was in place, the Fed purchased other securities on the open market, including U.S. Treasuries. “Under this program, the Fed became one of the biggest buyers of Treasury securities in the market,” says Tom Hainlin, national investment strategist at U.S. Bank. So the point is that although "the Treasury's debt management decisions are not influenced by the Federal Reserve's purchases of Treasury securities in secondary markets," the Fed could purchase Treasuries if they went unsold when they were first introduced into the primary market, and it can always buy Treasuries on the open or secondary market. This flexibility means that the Treasury doesn't have to set coupon rates on its Treasuries based on market interest rates, and that means that interest on the national debt could be controlled. The Fed could buy up Treasuries with high coupon rates and replace them with low coupon rate Treasuries or not replace them at all. Interest on the national debt could be reduced to an insignificant amount based on the Fed's operations. The fact that the Fed's balance sheet is growing by all these QE activities means absolutely nothing. In fact the Fed's balance sheet could swallow up the entire national debt. It would be just a figure on an accounting sheet of no consequence.

To answer the question posed by this article, "Why do Interest Rates on Treasuries Have to Go Up When the Fed Raises Interest Rates", they don't. People will want to hold Treasuries regardless of their value because their money is absolutely secure. That's the key point.

Another Look at the Financial Transactions Tax That Could Eliminate Need for All Others

A small financial transactions tax could correct a number of maladies in our economic system, from the federal debt crisis to the widening wealth divide to the rampant financialization of the economy, while eliminating taxes on income and sales.

From Web of Debt Blog

Posted on June 2, 2023 by Ellen Brown

The debt ceiling crisis has again brought into focus the perennial gap between what the government spends and what it accumulates in taxes, and the virtual impossibility of closing that gap by increasing taxes or negotiating cuts in the budget. 

In a 2023 book titled A Tale of Two Economies: A New Financial Operating System for the American Economy, Wall Street veteran Scott Smith shows that we would need to tax everyone at a rate of 40%, without deductions, to balance the budgets of our federal and local governments – an obvious nonstarter. The problem, he argues, is that we are taxing the wrong things – income and physical sales. In fact, we have two economies – the material economy in which goods and services are bought and sold, and the monetary economy involving the trading of financial assets (stocks, bonds, currencies, etc.) – basically “money making money” without producing new goods or services. 

Drawing on data from the Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve, Smith shows that the monetary economy is hundreds of times larger than the physical economy. The budget gap could be closed by imposing a tax of a mere 0.1% on financial transactions, while eliminating not just income taxes but every other tax we pay today. For a financial transactions tax (FTT) of 0.25%, we could fund benefits we cannot afford today that would stimulate growth in the real economy, including not just infrastructure and development but free college, a universal basic income, and free healthcare for all. Smith contends we could even pay off the national debt in ten years or less with a 0.25% FTT.  

A radical change in the tax structure may seem unlikely any time soon, due to the inertia of Congress and the overweening power of the financial industry. But as economist Michael Hudson and other commentators observe, the U.S. has reached its limits to growth without some sort of debt write down. Federal interest expense as a percent of tax revenues spiked to 32.9% in the first quarter of 2023, and it will spike further as old securities at lower interest rates mature and are replaced with new ones at much higher interest. A financial reset is not only necessary but may be imminent. Promising proposals like Smith’s can lead the way to a much-needed shift from serving “capital” to serving productivity and the broader public interest.

Off the Top of My Head

America Has an Employment Problem, Not an Unemployment Problem

by John Lawrence

Wherever you look from air traffic controllers to fruit pickers to caregivers to teachers to police, there are not enough workers. That is why unemployment is so low - at 3.4%. The Health Services, Professional and Business Services, Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services industries have the highest numbers of job openings. The question is why there is a shortage of workers and what to do about it.The pandemic caused a major disruption in America’s labor force—something many have referred to as The Great Resignation. In 2022, more than 50 million workers quit their jobs, many of whom were in search of an improved work-life balance and flexibility, increased compensation, and a strong company culture. But a closer look at what has happened to the labor force can be better described as ‘The Great Reshuffle’ because hiring rates have outpaced quit rates since November of 2020. So, many workers are quitting their jobs—but many are getting re-hired elsewhere. In a game of musical chairs workers are seeking and getting better jobs, leaving high stress professions like nursing and teaching and getting paid more to do other things.

So America basically has a shortage of "essential workers," workers who do necessary work for traditionally low pay. America has developed so many ways to make money doing inessential work at higher pay so why should anyone who doesn't have to work in an essential job? There are two ways. 1) Pay more for essential work and 2) increase legal immigration because increasingly immigrants are doing the work that Americans who have been Americans longer don't want to do. The worker shortage has empowered workers. They are so to speak in the catbird seat. They are demanding more pay, shorter hours, better working conditions. This is all well and good, but, as the pandemic showed, essential work is necessary for people to live while so many other forms of work, while more lucrative, could disappear tomorrow without affecting much most Americans' quality of life. For instance, Facebook had 86,482 full-time employees as of December 2022, up from just 150 people in 2006. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, nothing essential to life would be lost in my opinion. The same is true for other social media like Tik Tok. In fact considering the effects social media has had on the population, the world might be better off if all social media disappeared tomorrow. Then those workers would be available for more essential jobs.

If the advertising industry disappeared tomorrow, the world might be better off. For instance, I can find anything I might be interested in buying on Amazon. I don't need to be pounded on by TV commercials to be told what I should want or what I should need. In particualar, Facebook makes all its considerable revenues from advertising. It does not manufacture a product essential to life or any product at all. People are getting smart that there are cushier, safer jobs with better work-life balance than essential jobs. Caregivers like Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) are low paid but essential jobs. Anyone who has had a loved one in the hospital for any length of time realizes how essential they are. They do the dirty work like changing patients diapers and cleaning up when they haven't got to the patients' bedsides in time to prevent a tragedy. Nurses and teachers are overworked considering the nurse/patient ratio and the teacher/student ratio. Much essential work is done by non college graduates and, therefore, does not merit the esteem that college graduates' jobs garner. Nevertheless, they are more important jobs in an essential sense, than many jobs that require a college education. When you need a plumber, you will not usually be hiring a college graduate.

About half of Americans who lost their job during the pandemic and are still not working say they are not willing to take jobs that do not offer the opportunity for remote work. However, many essential jobs can't be done remotely. They are "hands on." It is about time that America values its essential workers and makes a distinction between what's essential and what is inessential. It's a question, to some extent, of values, of what kinds of work are valued. This is where unions come in. America cannot function without essential workers. Yet the only way they can get the pay and benefits they deserve is to unionize and withdraw their workforce if necessary to get what they deserve. For sure, they won't get a better paying job otherwise unless they quit and go to work for Facebook.