California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

400 Children Dead in Order to Get 4 Hamas. What Kind of Person Does This?

by John Lawrence

Netanyahu is turning Gaza into a pile of rubble that soon will be uninhabitable. That's probably the strategy. Then he and Trump can turn Gaza into "Gaza on the Riviera." Netanyahu turns off the water and any kind of humanitarian assistance. That might flush out a couple more Hamas. This is ridiculous and Trump will probably give him the green light to carry on with this destruction of innocent women and children. Nothing justifies this. The October 7 attack by Hamas doesn't justify another brutal attack by Israel on innocents in Gaza. One bad deed does not justify another. This war is entirely one sided. Gazans are at the mercy of Israel and Netanyahu. Couldn't they do more surgical attacks just on Hamas without bombing Gazans indiscriminately and randomly? There's no justification for murdering 400 children in order to get a few Hamas.

In short Israel is committing war crimes. They are turning Gaza into rubble and then creating a humanitarian crisis. They are destroying everything above ground while Hamas is holed up underground. So why doesn't the Israeli army go underground to get Hamas and leave those structures and people above ground alone? Who can believe in the moral clarity of Israel and in particular Netanyahu when his operations involve a killing ratio of 400 children to 4 Hamas militants. At least in Ukraine you don't see any such scenario. You don't see whole neighborhoods turned into rubble. You don't see scores of innocent civilians killed in order to kill a couple militants. Mostly militants are doing the dying. I give Trump credit for wanting to stop the killing there even if he goes about trying to resolve the situation in a haphazard and inept way. Will he have the same feelings about stopping the killing in Gaza? There there is not even a fair fight. Gazans are at the mercy of Israel and Israel has no mercy.

Revenge is not a legitimate reason for carrying out the utter destruction of everything that is necessary for human life. Gazans are trying to regain some normalcy by living amid the rubble, and then Israel bombs the rubble again. They're told to move here; then that here is bombed. Then they're told to move there and then that there is bombed. There are no good intentions on the part of Netanyahu in regard to the children of Gaza only an unmitigated feeling of a right to revenge, and that revenge has resulted mainly in killing children. Will these children ever get the right to move on with their lives and their educations? It doesn't seem like it. When has Netanyahu ever expressed any concern about that? Or is that even a consideration on Israel's part. It's sad that a people who has suffered so much over the course of history has  leaders who have decided to show no mercy to the children of another ethnicity. As far as I know, Netanyahu has shown no concern for the children of Gaza. His sole ambition seems to be killing all Hamas, but his method of doing so is to bomb the hell out of innocent civilians in the hope of killing a few Hamas.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's Message Mishandling

by John Lawrence

Trump has given the impression that he has switched sides in the Ukraine war. There is a grain of truth in his statement that Ukraine started the war. That grain is that Zelensky might have prevented the war from starting if only he had pledged that Ukraine would not seek to join NATO. Former Soviet block countries joining NATO is a sore point from the Russian perspective, but neither Biden or Zelensky ever gave any credence to the Russian perspective with the result that thousands of people have been killed and millions of dollars of real estate destroyed. Biden's policy was to demonize and isolate Putin from the very start of the Ukraine war if not before. The Washington Post reported: "Over the past few weeks, Biden’s rhetoric on Putin — a man he once recounted telling to his face, “I don’t think you have a soul” — has become increasingly pointed. He has called him a “butcher”, “pure thug” and a “murderous dictator.” So saying that he should be removed from power could be viewed as the logical next step." Biden's making Putin into a pariah didn't leave any lines of communication open for diplomacy or any avenue for ending the war other than by Ukraine winning which required more and more powerful weapons supplied by the Biden administration at first reluctantly. Biden left no off ramp for Russia because of his demonization of Putin.

From Putin's perspective it was all about whether or not Ukraine could or would join NATO. Biden's attitude was that Ukraine had an absolute right to do so. There was to be no negotiation about this. Russia's sensitivity about former Warsaw pact countries joining NATO goes back to 1989 in which Gorbashev was given assurances that if he relinquished control over East Germany and let the two Germanies reunite, NATO wouldn't move "one inch eastward" which is exactly what NATO under the Clinton administration proceeded to do. NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO.

The question must also be asked does the fate of Ukraine in the current war affect one way or another US interests? What are US interests in Ukraine? According to Joe Biden it's all about the idea that any country should be free to join NATO if it so desires. Is this something that the US should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve? Might the money be spent in some other way that might better promote peace in the world? Russia obviously considers Ukraine to be in its "sphere of influence." The architecture of the war as designed by Joe Biden is that the US would supply weaponry to Ukraine to fight a defensive war to push Russia out of its territory. At the same time the war was not meant to expand to a larger conflagration that would imperil a world war. The consequence of that is that all the dying and property destruction would be by Ukrainians and in Ukraine. This is a formula for disaster if the war should become a war of attrition which it has. A whole generation of Ukrainian men mostly are being wiped out. Of course a lot of Russians are dying too, but property destruction is taking place mainly in Ukraine.

Joe Biden had personalized the war in Ukraine as a vendetta between himself and Vladimir Putin. This does not bode well for a future peace settlement, and a peace settlement must come at some point or Ukraine will essentially be destroyed by an ongoing war of attrition. Ukraine obviously wants to expand the war to Russian territory with the help of more advanced US weaponry, something that Biden has resisted giving to them because he wants the war contained within Ukrainian territory. He doesn't want an expanded war which could develop into a World War. This is to his credit, but it leaves Ukraine in the position of being totally dependent on US weaponry, and, since the US is a democracy and not an autocracy, ironically if the House of Representatives will not allocate the money for the continuance of the war in Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war. Is there any kind of back channel communication going on about a peace settlement? And then Trump was elected, someone not on the same wave length as Joe Biden. In fact philosophically opposite regarding the war in Ukraine.

So Trump's reestablishing a relationship with Russia and wanting to end the killing in Ukraine is a good thing. After all Russia (and China as well) are on the UN Security Council along with the US, France and Britain. Therefore, Russia should be given at least respect as being a great power. Demonizing Putin does not accomplish anything other than prolonging the war and the killing. Advocates of "winning" mainly don't even consider that the prolongation of the war, any war, means that more innocent people will lose their lives. Trump's heart may have been in the right place when he at least seemed to recognize that there were Russian interests and sensitivities involved in the war in Ukraine, but he never clarified in any cogent fashion his position with the result that his utterances may have been misconstrued to mean that he supported Russia and not Ukraine. He did make clear, however, that he wanted the killing to stop. Nobody, it seems, wants to give him credit for that. The main thing is to get the negotiations started with all players being in the room so that this war can end in some reasonable fashion without further acrimony and vilification.

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Have to Come Up With a Plan to Make Real Estate Affordable Again

by John Lawrence

In the end Trump's and Musk's blitzkrieg may end up being a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. However, there is a lesson here for Democrats. They need to have a couple of bullet points and a well thought out plan that they can execute or start executing on Day 1 of the next Presidential election, and they need to start hammering on it now. This is exactly what Trump did. He hammered for four years in his campaign rallies on MAGA before the election of 2024. The major bullet point should be Make Housing Affordable Again. This is the Number One economic problem in the US, and is something that government can and should do something about. There are a number of ways to do this. Kamala's plan for down payment assistance is one. But a much larger effort is needed and it should be ready to go on Day One of a new Democratic administration in 2028.

The Federal government can also give much more than down payment assistance. It can provide much or all of the capital to pay for the home with the understanding that, when the home is sold, the government will be paid back. It can facilitate the transfer of equity that parents or grandparents may have in their homes to children to be used for their home in much the same way that a reverse mortgage works. That is equity in a home can be transferred from an older generation to a younger generation in such a way that there is no increase in expenses for the older generation. There are private companies that do much the same thing right now. It is called Home Equity Investment.  They will take an equity position in a home in such a way that when the home is eventually sold the company will get a percentage of the profits. At the same time they provide the homeowner with a bunch of cash which can be used to help a child buy their own home. This is different from a HELOC- a Home Equity Line of Credit - in which monthly payments have to be made. A HEI doesn't require monthly payments.Democrats should get involved in this and other creative  aspects in a big way and have well thought out plans that they can implement on Day One of a new Democratic administration.

Another idea is that government could let contracts to builders and developers to build affordable housing. Biden's Infrastructure and Jobs Act provided $547–715 billion for building and repairing infrastructure in the US which was and is very necessary. A similar act to build affordable housing could be implemented. It would also create thousands of jobs. These houses could be built in such a way as to be climate change resistant.  These various ideas could be fleshed out in a document similar to Project 2025. The point is to have plans to make real estate affordable and to make this the Number One bullet point for Democrats in 2026 and 2028. Secondary bullet points could be taxing the rich and giving tax breaks to the middle class, enhancing social security and  providing money for child care and elder care.

Off the Top of My Head

When Will Elon Take a Wrecking Ball and a Sledgehammer to the Military-Industrial Complex?

by John Lawrence

I'm still waiting. So far Elon's wrecking ball has saved small potatoes. The really big fraud, waste and abuse is in the Defense Department. The United States spends more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. In 2024 the US spent over a trillion dollars just on interest on the Federal debt. The current defense budget is $895 billion. The US budget for intelligence agencies in 2023 was $99.6 billion which was a nearly $10 billion increase from 2022. U.S. programs to operate and modernize nuclear forces would cost $756 billion over the next 10 years. So when you add it all up, the US spends well over a trillion dollars a year on defense/offense. In 2023 The federal government spent 38.0% more than it collected  resulting in a $1.7 trillion deficit. In 2024 the US added $2 trillion to the national debt. The last trillion was added just 4 months after the previous trillion. In the new Trump/Musk era, in which the US will purportedly retreat from being a globally connected power, there are much cost savings to be had by cutting all these budgets down to size. China's total military spending for 2024 has been estimated at US $471 billion, roughly half the US military budget. The US could bring it's defense/offense budget down to roughly that size and still spend more money than any other country.

The question is couldn't the US slash its military budget and still be a world power? The only other alternative to cutting US expenditures down to the size of US revenues is to cut spending on social security and medicare. The federal government spent $1.35 trillion on Social Security in fiscal year 2023. This accounted for 22% of the total federal budget. In 2023, the federal government spent about $848.2 billion on Medicare. Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states. In 2022, the federal government covered 71 percent of the program's cost, spending $592 billion. So the Trump/Musk cost cutting regime is likely to focus on Medicaid, which is the health care program that mostly helps poor and vulnerable people. The federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in FY 2023 and spent almost $6.2 trillion. So the US government was $1.7 trillion short! In 2024 $2 trillion was added to the national debt, and currently the US spends $882 billion just on interest on the national debt, about the same amount as the nominal defense budget and more than was spent on Medicare!

In the first Trump presidency the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion mainly due to tax cuts for the rich. Now that Trump wants the debt ceiling abolished, he will probably want to use the same playbook to give more humungus tax cuts to the rich. This will drive up the national debt, which now stands at $36 trillion to even higher nose bleeding heights. Meanwhile, Musk will find that his cost cutting measures can only come to fruition by raising payroll taxes, the money paid into the social security fund by working people. He could also raise the cap on social security payments which now stands at $176,100. So all those making more than this cap pay nothing on income above it. However, since this would affect rich people, it may not be raised except in the case that there would be all kinds of carve outs or exceptions for the very rich. In other words the working rich, who receive a salary, might have to pay more. What we are not likely to see is any kind of taxes raised on stock sales or carried interest, in other words money that is made by the very rich.

Medicaid will probably be the first target of Musk cost cutting. Many red states have already opted out of Medicaid expansion which was included in Obamacare. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured identified 21 states that, as of July 2013, were not proceeding with Medicaid expansion and 6 states in which a decision had not been made. Forty-six percent of uninsured adults in the United States who could become eligible for coverage live in a state that is not planning to expand Medicaid. In the south, the region with the highest rates of uninsured, more than 80% of potentially eligible adults will not gain coverage because of decisions to opt out. Trump/Musk will probably want to leave Medicaid totally to the states leaving Federal funding off the hook altogether. Many of these states will then totally opt out of any Medicaid responsibilities whatsoever.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's Idea for Redeveloping Gaza to Become the Riviera of the Middle East

by John Lawrence

At first thought Trump's idea doesn't seem all that bad. On second thought it seems terrible. Wouldn't it be nice if Gaza could be redeveloped to be the Riviera of the Middle East? But then what would happen to the Palestinians? Trump wants to move them to Egypt or Jordan. No way Jose say the leaders of those countries. Trump also implies that, after the Palestinians have been gotten rid of, then Gaza and the West Bank would become part of Israel. Israel would extend "from the river to the sea," and to boot rich people from all over the world could buy expensive ocean front property in what once was Gaza. Right wing Israelis and perhaps even Netanyahu himself like this idea very much. However, with some alteration, at least part of this idea might be a feasible solution to the problem. Gaza at present is really uninhabitable. It, as Trump says, is a demolition zone. If the Palestinians moved out, Gaza could be properly demolished and then rebuilt. Israel could finish the war without harming any more Gazan civilians. Gaza could be razed, the tunnels destroyed and then properly rebuilt. But where are the Gazans to go during this process? How about Israel itself? According to available information, around 93% of Israel's land is considered "state land" managed by the Israel Land Administration, which means it is mostly available for lease and not privately owned, effectively making it "vacant" land for development purposes; the remaining 7% is privately owned or under religious authority control. Therefore, temporary accommodations for Gazans could be built inside Israel itself possibly right adjacent to the Gazan border while Gaza is being redeveloped and while the war is being "finished." Supposedly at that point no Gazans whether Hamas or otherwise, would be left inside Gaza.

After Gaza has been redeveloped, the Gazans would be allowed to move back in. Security could be provided by UN peace keepers, other Arabic countries such as Saudi Arabia or some other coalition until the normalization of Gaza in its own right could occur, thus resulting in a two state solution ipso facto without ever proclaiming a two state solution. It would happen naturally as a matter of course. This would amount to not a two state solution but to a one and a half state solution until such time as it would eventually turn into a two state solution. In this way multiple things could be accomplished. 1) Israel could "finish the war." 2) No more innocent civilians would be harmed. 3) Hamas would be wiped out. Only militants would be killed. 4) Gaza could be properly demolished and rebuilt. 5) Gazans could return to a rebuilt and refurbished Gaza, a veritable Riviera of the Middle East and 6) Israel would no longer be Gaza's overlord. A third party would provide security and 7) Palestine would "grow into" its own de facto state.

So what about the West Bank? That could be considered a separate issue. Or other ideas might also make sense. One would be a land swap. Increase the land area of Gaza proportionately to the land area of the West Bank and absorb the West Bank into Israel. Then the Palestinians would have one contiguous homeland instead of being divided into two pieces. In the final analysis Trump's idea with some modification is not all that bad. Gaza is really uninhabitable in its present condition. Hamas is still there. Why wouldn't Gazans want to temporarily move to a place with more humane and hospitable conditions? Eventually, the Paletinian government itself might want to lease a portion of its ocean front property for a Trump Tower Gaza.

Finally, none of the above measures should be undertaken until all the hostages are out. The cease fire should continue till all the hostages are out

Off the Top of My Head

Just 2 Guys Were Responsible for Eliminating Diseases that Maimed Millions of People

bu John Lawrence

Jimmy Carter eliminated guinea worm as a disease that affected millions of people. Guinea worm disease is a painful parasitic infection caused by a thread-like worm that emerges from the skin, typically through the feet or legs. Since 1986, The Carter Center has led the international campaign to eradicate Guinea worm disease, working closely with ministries of health and local communities, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and many others. Guinea worm disease could become the second human disease in history, after smallpox, to be eradicated. It would be the first parasitic disease to be eradicated and the first disease to be eradicated without the use of a vaccine or medicine. Guinea worm is a particularly devastating disease that incapacitates people for extended periods of time, making them unable to care for themselves, work, grow food for their families, or attend school. In 1986, the disease afflicted an estimated 3.5 million people a year in 21 countries in Africa and Asia. Today, thanks to the work of The Carter Center and its partners — including the countries themselves — the incidence of Guinea worm has been reduced by more than 99.99 percent to 14 provisional* human cases in 2023.

Bill Gates has reduced river blindness to just a handful of cases. River blindness is a parasitic worm disease transmitted to humans by black flies. It causes blindness and severe skin disease. The Gates Foundation has helped eliminate river blindness in four South American countries and Niger, the first African country to achieve elimination. Fifty years ago, half of people living in West Africa were at risk for river blindness—a neglected tropical disease that, when left untreated, can cause permanent blindness, disfiguring skin conditions, and debilitating itching. In 2023, Niger became the first African country to eliminate the transmission of river blindness and Senegal is on track to become the second country to achieve the milestone. Now, the Gates Foundation is collaborating with Reaching the Last Mile and other global partners to eliminate river blindness and lymphatic filariasis across 39 countries in Africa and Yemen, helping to reduce the number of people requiring treatment by 350 million.

Granted these two men were not singlehandedly responsible for eradicating two horrible diseases affecting millions of people, but their efforts put resources where they needed to be to relieve the suffering of millions of people. Neither of these people have resources anywhere near the resources of the US government. So where does the US government put its resources? About a trillion dollars a year goes into the military-industrial complex fighting wars and getting ready (preparedness) to fight the wars of the future. With a smidgin of these resources, the US could instead eradicate many of the causes of war. According to the World Bank, around 44% of the global population, or roughly 3.5 billion people, live in poverty as measured by the upper-middle-income poverty line of $6.85 per day in 2024. According to the latest UN World Water Development Report, approximately 46% of the world's population lacks access to safely managed sanitation services, meaning they do not have adequate sanitation. According to the latest UN reports, around 26% of the world's population, which translates to roughly 2 billion people, do not have access to safe drinking water. Resource misallocation by the US government perpetuates the status quo and creates rather than solves problems related to world peace.

Jimmy Carter is one of the few Presidents that actually created peace in the world. The Egypt–Israel peace treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., United States, on 26 March 1979, following the 1978 Camp David Accords. The Egypt–Israel treaty was signed by Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, and witnessed by Jimmy Carter, President of the United States. According to the stated goals of the initiative, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)  aims to promote peaceful development, foster global stability, and contribute to world peace by encouraging economic interdependence, infrastructure development, cultural exchange, and diplomatic connections between participating nations. It's a step in the right direction even if not wholly successful. What is the US doing besides criticising China and gearing up another Cold War? Money spent on the military-industrial complex could be better spent on diplomatic efforts at creating world peace.

Off the Top of My Head

A Comparison of US Democracy and Chinese Meritocracy

by John Lawrence

China has been characterized as an autocracy or a dictatorship by American media which is basically a misrepresentation of how their political system actually works. China has a long history going back 5000 years including a number of dynasties such as the Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Yuan and Quing. For most of its history China's political system has been primarily influenced by Confucianism which mandated that Chinese scholar-officials be chosen after submitting to a rigorous and extensive examination so as to choose the best and the brightest people and also those with the highest ethical standards to comprise the government. In one dynasty applicants had to show up at the examination site with their own food and sleeping bags and be locked into a cubicle for 3 days while they took the exam. China does have democracy at the local level. These local leaders then choose the government at the prefectural level who choose the leaders in the National Assembly so it is an indirect democracy in a sense just as parliamentary democracies choose their prime minister not by a vote of the people but by a vote of the people elected to parliament.

The US has a form of democracy where the people vote district by district for members of the House and state by state for members of the Senate. They also vote directly for the President. Because of the nature of the voting system which is first-past-the-post or plurality, the candidate with the most votes, even if not a majority, wins. The voting system is further complicated by the electoral college when voting for the President and by gerrymandering when voting for Congressional representatives. US voters get to vote for one Congress person representing their district and two senators representing their state so only three people at the national level at all. There are no standards of knowledge or expertise for any candidate so any fool or idiot can be elected President or a member of Congress. Because of the nature of the voting system, the US is a two party system as opposed to China which is a one party system. The best form might be a no party system in which at least one House of a bicameral legislature is chosen by sortition (random selection) which is what Aristotle recommended. This type of system would exactly mirror the society which arguably is what democracy is supposed to accomplish. That would at least reduce the divisiveness between elites and non-elites which both the US and the Chinese systems suffer from.

Some people have argued that the Chinese Communist Party controls the Chinese government. To some extent this is true since China is a one party system. However, China changed its economic system in 1980 When Deng Xiaoping became Chairman. China's economic success is largely due to Deng's abandoning the communist economic system in favor of capitalism. So while China is no longer communist, they have still stuck with the name. Many scholars have recommended a name change to eliminate the word communism such that the party is simply known as the Chinese party, not the Chinese Communist party. Due to private enterprise, more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 40 years. Both the Chinese one party system and the US two party system have their defects. In the recent US election the majority or voters had no interest in long term solutions to problems such as climate change. Their only interest was their own wallets. China is capable of long term planning and also of making big changes on an immediate basis while the US is stuck in gridlock on many issues due to divisiveness of the two parties. True the US has a one person, one vote democracy, but the quality and sophistication of the voters, themselves, determines to a great extent the quality of US democracy as a whole.

Perhaps the Chinese system could be broadened in such a way that the people voted on all those candidates who passed the Confucian style examinations. The American system could also be improved by requiring its candidates for office to have attained some level of expertise for the offices they seek. A combination of democracy and meritocracy might be the way to go.

Off the Top of My Head

Elon: There Are Great Cost Savings to be Made by Cutting the Trillion Dollar Budget of the Defense Department

by John Lawrence

The United States spends more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. In 2024 the US spent over a trillion dollars just on interest on the Federal debt. The current defense budget is $895 billion. The US budget for intelligence agencies in 2023 was $99.6 billion which was a nearly $10 billion increase from 2022. U.S. programs to operate and modernize nuclear forces would cost $756 billion over the next 10 years. So when you add it all up, the US spends well over a trillion dollars a year on defense/offense. In 2023 The federal government spent 38.0% more than it collected  resulting in a $1.7 trillion deficit. In 2024 the US added $2 trillion to the national debt. The last trillion was added just 4 months after the previous trillion. In the new Trump/Musk era, in which the US will purportedly retreat from being a globally connected power, there are much cost savings to be had by cutting all these budgets down to size. China's total military spending for 2024 has been estimated at US $471 billion, roughly half the US military budget. The US could bring it's defense/offense budget down to roughly that size and still spend more money than any other country.

The question is couldn't the US slash its military budget and still be a world power? The only other alternative to cutting US expenditures down to the size of US revenues is to cut spending on social security and medicare. The federal government spent $1.35 trillion on Social Security in fiscal year 2023. This accounted for 22% of the total federal budget. In 2023, the federal government spent about $848.2 billion on Medicare. Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states. In 2022, the federal government covered 71 percent of the program's cost, spending $592 billion. So the Trump/Musk cost cutting regime is likely to focus on Medicaid, which is the health care program that mostly helps poor and vulnerable people. The federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in FY 2023 and spent almost $6.2 trillion. So the US government was $1.7 trillion short! In 2024 $2 trillion was added to the national debt, and currently the US spends $882 billion just on interest on the national debt, about the same amount as the nominal defense budget and more than was spent on Medicare!

In the first Trump presidency the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion mainly due to tax cuts for the rich. Now that Trump wants the debt ceiling abolished, he will probably want to use the same playbook to give more humungus tax cuts to the rich. This will drive up the national debt, which now stands at $36 trillion to even higher nose bleeding heights. Meanwhile, Musk will find that his cost cutting measures can only come to fruition by raising payroll taxes, the money paid into the social security fund by working people. He could also raise the cap on social security payments which now stands at $176,100. So all those making more than this cap pay nothing on income above it. However, since this would affect rich people, it may not be raised except in the case that there would be all kinds of carve outs or exceptions for the very rich. In other words the working rich, who receive a salary, might have to pay more. What we are not likely to see is any kind of taxes raised on stock sales or carried interest, in other words money that is made by the very rich.

Medicaid will probably be the first target of Musk cost cutting. Many red states have already opted out of Medicaid expansion which was included in Obamacare. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured identified 21 states that, as of July 2013, were not proceeding with Medicaid expansion and 6 states in which a decision had not been made. Forty-six percent of uninsured adults in the United States who could become eligible for coverage live in a state that is not planning to expand Medicaid. In the south, the region with the highest rates of uninsured, more than 80% of potentially eligible adults will not gain coverage because of decisions to opt out. Trump/Musk will probably want to leave Medicaid totally to the states leaving Federal funding off the hook altogether. Many of these states will then totally opt out of any Medicaid responsibilities whatsoever.

Off the Top of My Head

President Trump: Will You Shut Down the 750 US Military Bases on Foreign Soil?

by John Lawrence

The United States has around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, but the Pentagon doesn't publish all data, so the actual number may be higher. According to multiple sources, maintaining the approximately 750 US military bases on foreign soil costs the American taxpayer around $55 billion per year. Now, Elon Musk, you can start there with your Department of Government Efficiency. Dismantling the American Empire could save taxpayers beau coup bucks. This totally fits with the MAGA plan. Make America Great Again by not wasting taxpayer money on a bunch of real estate assets which are of dubious value either militarily or financially. After all we have aircraft carriers which can be stationed all over the world and in particular in hot spots. In addition we have ICBMs which can hit any target world wide in a matter of seconds. Add to that our submarine fleet armed with nukes.

$55 billion - that ain't hay just to have an unneeded military presence on foreign soil. Besides the military personnel stationed at these bases are sitting ducks for terrorists.A recent incident where military personnel stationed at a base were injured involved a rocket attack on Al Asad airbase in western Iraq, where several US service members and contractors were injured by two rockets launched by militants. Three U.S. soldiers were killed January 28, 2024 in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Two dozen American military personnel were wounded in October 2023 in a series of drone attacks at American bases in Iraq and Syria, Nineteen American service members stationed in Iraq and Syria have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury after rocket and drone attacks from Iran-backed militants in this same attack.

Is it worth it? What kind of premium does the Department of Government Efficiency put on a human life? Making America Great Again requires that money not be wasted on fooolhardy ventures on foreign soil when sea and air borne military assets are fully capable of dealing with any military situation anywhere in the world. And by the way, when was the last time the Defense Department passed an audit? The Pentagon on November 15, 2024 failed its seventh audit in a row, with the nation’s largest government agency still unable to fully account for its more than $824 billion budget, though officials stress they are making good progress toward a clean audit in 2028. Elon should look into those toilet seats and hammers too. The New York Times reported: Over the past few months alone, the Defense Department has had to explain why it’s been paying $14,000 for individual 3-D printed toilet seat lids and purchasing cups for $1,280 each. These are just the latest examples on a long list of unacceptable purchases made by the department, including $436 for hammers in the 1980s, and $117 soap dish covers and $999 pliers in the 1990s. Elon is famous for telling his employees to run down to Home Depot to buy needed items for Space X rather than going through the government procurement process. Well, let's hop to it. Let's get real. The Pentagon is where the real waste in government is. There's plenty for Elon and Vivek to cut there. Will they do it?

Off the Top of My Head

Political Meritocracy vs Democracy

by John Lawrence

China's system of government can be characterized as political meritocracy what author Daniel Bell (The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy) refers to as "democracy at the lower levels of government and political meritocracy at higher levels of government, with political experimentation in between." While China has a democracy at the local political levels, at the intermediate and higher levels of government those leaders are elected by the bureaucracy at the next lower level. In the US leaders at the highest level are elected by "the people." This has the danger that "an elected leader without any political experience (e.g., Donald Trump) could rise to the top (and make many beginner’s mistakes), an elected leader would have to spend valuable time raising funds and giving the same speech over and over again, instead of thinking about policy, and an elected leader would be more constrained by short-term electoral considerations at the expense of long-term planning for the good of the political community and the rest of the world."

It's clear that Donald Trump is not interested in " long-term planning for the good of the political community and the rest of the world." In fact in order to deal with climate change which Trump considers a hoax, long term planning would be required. Just as well, Trump is not concerned with "the rest of the world," only with the US. This liability of democracy at the highest level seems to make China's system at least more intriguing. It is based on a 2000 year history of Confucianism which required government leaders to be selected based on a civil service examination with only those with the highest results being given the highest levels in the bureaucracy. Men of the highest intellectual ability and moral character were to be chosen for the highest positions in the Chinese government. As Daniel Bell states:

... the ideal of political meritocracy has a long history in China. More than 2,500 years ago, Confucius defended the view that exemplary people[ junzi 君子] have superior ability and virtue (as opposed to the earlier view that junzi have aristocratic family backgrounds), and since then Chinese intellectuals have argued over which abilities and virtues matter for government, how to assess those abilities and virtues, and how to institutionalize a political system that aims to select and promote public officials with superior abilities and virtues. It is no exaggeration to say that the ideal of political meritocracy was taken for granted in most political debates in Chinese history. And China’s two-thousand-year experience with a complex bureaucratic system can be viewed as a constant effort to institutionalize the ideal of political meritocracy.

Political meritocracy in China has similar drawbacks to economic and political meritocracy in America. Those who aren't in the top echelons resent the fact that elitists have all the political power and in America the economic power as well. In fact in America it is said that IQ plus effort = outcomes in the system. In the US this has led to a backlash among non-elites with the result that people like Donald Trump are elected to the highest political positions. What is important in today's world is to assess the differences between the Chinese and American political systems realistically in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of each without rushing to judgement that one system is better than the other or that these two countries which represent different systems should automatically be enemies locked in unmitigated combat with each other over which system is superior.

Coexistence should be the name of the game. It's just possible that at some future date another country which combines the best features of both systems might come to be a world leader. In fact the most democratic way to elect a national assembly is sortition which is a completely random way of choosing a national body. In this way both elitists and non-elitists are elected in proportion to their levels in society at large. The other advantage is this could be done with absolutely no financial campaign expenditures because there would be no campaigns. Talk about taking the money out of politics; there is no better system. Of course I'm not suggesting that this would be the only national assembly. A bicameral system could have another House selected by a different means - maybe meritocratic.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Will Terminate the Filibuster

by John Lawrence

The filibuster is the only tool Democrats have left to impede Trump's absolute power. Therefore, they will end it which they can do by simple majority rule although the arcane rules of the Senate are debatable whether or not this can happen. I predict that the Republicans will find a way around these arcane rules and end the filibuster by majority rule. This gives Trump effectively the power of a dictator since he then will control all branches of government including the Supreme Court. He not only will be dictator on Day 1, but at least till the next election cycle in 2 years. The Congressional Research Service reports Eight Mechanisms to Enact Procedural Change in the U.S. Senate. Republicans will use some combinbation of these to end the filibuster at least for as long as they control all three branches of the government and the Supreme Court. If they are clever, which I suspect they are, they will do it in such a way that as soon as Democrats control the Senate, the filibuster will automatically come back into effect. Most of the mechanisms require two thirds or three fifths Senate approval. However one of them seemingly does not.

5. Establish a new precedent. Senate procedural actions are also regulated by parliamentary precedent. Rulings of the presiding officer on the application of chamber rules are generally subject to an appeal to the full Senate. In most procedural circumstances, appeals are debatable. This fact operates as a significant bar to creating new precedent by appeal. When appeals are made in procedural circumstances that render them nondebatable, however—for example, after cloture has been invoked or when the appeal is made in relation to a nondebatable motion—no supermajority to limit debate is needed, and a majority can overrule the chair and establish a new understanding of what a Senate rule means or how it is applied.

The above consists of so much gobbledygook that I'm sure that a determined majority of Republicans could suspend whatever the rules may be in order to get whatever Trump wanted passed passed. Democrats would unquestionably use the filibuster every chance they got unless the filibuster was rendered moot by a change in the Senate rules which are so arbitrary to begin with. I'm sure that majority rule in the Senate would come in handy when, for instance, Trump wanted to change the laws regarding asylum or abortion at the national level or even abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education. As Elon Musk slashes and burns many jobs and even whole departments in the Federal government, Trump would have to have both Houses of Congress on his side. So it would be necessary to hamstring the Democrats by making the filibuster rule impotent.

The filibuster can be eliminated by a simple majority rule vote. Eliminating the filibuster is simple. All it takes to eliminate the filibuster is a simple majority vote in the Senate — and this can be done at any time. Senate Democrats can introduce a big package of democracy reforms, like DC statehood and expanding voting rights. Mitch McConnell, the self-proclaimed “grim reaper” of progressive legislation, then initiates a filibuster. Democrats can then hold a vote, and with just 50 votes eliminate the filibuster and prevent McConnell from vetoing the legislation.

Well, now McConnell is gone, but the issue remains the same. Republicans have already elimiinated the filibuster for issues they care about - mainly tax cuts. These can be done in such a way that Democrats can't filibuster them. Now since Republicans are the majority in both Houses of Congress, they can enact any legislation they want by simply eliminating the filibuster so that Democrats can't stop their proposed legislation. Democrats will have to wait until they control the Senate before they can do the same in order to get their legislation like gun control and other progressive legislation passed.

Many Trump voters say they voted for him because they voted for change. Now that they are about to get it, it remains to be seen how well they will like it. Stay tuned.

Off the Top of My Head

The Left-Right Political Spectrum is Irrelevant

by John Lawrence

The spectrum that is relevant is an Up-Down spectrum with Up representing rationality and down representing emotionalism. For instance, Trump voters were generally ignorant regarding the issues especially at a level deeper than sloganeering. To talk about policy points is something they're not interested in or knowledgeable about. Kamala's policy positions were ones that favored the working class. $25,000 down payments for first time home buyers. Tax breaks for 100 million people etc. $6000 child care allowance. She enumerated some specifics. Yet it has been reported that Trump was more popular with the working class. It doesn't make sense in terms of a left-right political spectrum. Trump's supporters were basically ignorant of what left or right positions were or if Kamala's specifics were more credible than Trump's vague assertions. They made their choice based on feelings. Now Democrats are wondering how they can appeal to the working class. Well, how the Republicans did it was like the Romans did it. Bread and Circuses only with Trump it was the promise of bread but actual circuses which were what his rallies were all about. No need to talk about actual policy positions like Kamala did. Trump just made blanket statements like whatever it is that ails you, I will fix it. Just a statement, not a policy position. No need to talk about how he would fix it.

The problem for Democrats is that they represent the Up side of the political spectrum. Republicans represent the down side. The Up side usually will not lie in representing their positions. The Down side has no problem with lying or engaging in conspiracy theories or any other mechanism in order to gain power. Democrats will not usually stoop to that level so that they are stuck when it comes to getting some of those working class voters back. It's a cultural thing. The down culture is about the down side of American culture which is violence, vulgarity and disingenuousness typified by Donald Trump and Hulk Hogan. It's hard to visualize that Democrats would have Hulk Hogan ripping off his shirt at their convention. So the Democrats are in general high minded, the Republicans low minded. So where are the majority of the American electorate? More aligned with Hulk Hogan than Kamala Harris. More aligned with whomever can entertain them the most than with whomever has their best interests at heart. Americans, at least a majority of them, got the President they deserved. To get some Republican voters back Democrats would have to descend to levels on the Up-Down spectrum that they would be uncomfortable with in ethical terms.

So people on the up side of the political spectrum have some sense of ethics, integrity and rationality. People on the down side would be averse to rationality, only concerned about feelings and susceptible to conspiracy theories and being conned and duped. They would vote against their interests as long as it "felt right." A democracy needs to have an informed, rational and concerned electorate. If the majority of voters are only concerned about how a politician makes them feel, they will elect politicians who not only are not the best for them personally but are not the best for the country or the world in general. When the electorate supports a culture of violence and vulgarity, it makes sense that they would elect vulgar and prone to violence politicians. Policy positions have no bearing whether they are left or right on the political spectrum. The only meaningful political spectrum at this point is up-down. When Trump says, "I will solve your problems," true believers believe it without Trump having to spell out an exact policy that would accomplish that goal. When Kamala spells out an exact policy, true believers say that they don't believe that that policy would work. It's the difference between believing something no matter how irrational and not believing something that is actually rational. American voters are not asking what they can do for their country but what can their country do for them, and then making the wrong choice.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Trump Won

by John Lawrence

Trump has campaigned non-stop for the last 4 years. There have been a series of hundreds that began in the summer of 2015. These rallies have emulated Hitler's rallies at Nuremberg in the 1930s in terms of their symbols - flags, hats, merchandise, patriotic music. The Nazi Party Rallies, held in Nuremberg from 1933 to 1938, served most of all to stage-manage the image of the regime and Adolf Hitler, and to theatricalize the racially rooted myth of the "community of the Volk" and the population's backing of the war. Nazi symbols such as the swastika and the formal symbol of the party, the Parteiadler, an eagle atop a swastika and many others are comparable to all the Trump flags, the Trump merchandise and the Trump symbols which seemed to be everywhere creating a festive atmosphere similar to that created by the Nazi party. At Trump rallies they hired huge cranes to hoist the American flag high above the rally. Trump's plane with his name emblazoned on the side stood at the ready for all to see. President Biden and Kamala Harris had nothing to compare with all the Trump flags, Trump symbols and Trump merchandise which for years dominated the mass media. Each rally was a show, an extravaganza which aimed to demonstrate the power and ubiquitousness of the Trump name. Each outrageous Trump utterance, especially the gaffes, dominated the news and the talk shows. Democrats had nothing that could compare in terms of showmanship, stage management and image.

Trump and the Nazis appealed to feelings, especially feelings of patriotism. The Democrats appealed to reason. The appeal to feelings won much as that kind of appeal won for the Nazi party. The appeal to feelings won out over the fact that Trump was a convicted felon who tried to overthrow the American Constitution much as Hitler won out despite the beer hall putsch which landed him in jail prior to his takeover of the Weimar Republic. Hitler took complete control of the German Republic in a drawn out process while Trump took complete control of all branches of government in a democratic election. Even the Supreme Court has given him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. He has pledged to be a dictator on Day One as well as to let Russia do "whatever the hell they want" in NATO countries including presumably Ukraine. So there are no guard rails on Trump just as there were none on Hitler once he took over the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany. The people that elected Trump were more persuaded by a show than they were by rationality just as the people of Germany yielded to symbols and showmanship.

Trump said, "Hitler did some good things," a statement that was much derided in the mainstream media despite the fact that it was absolutely true. Hitler brought Germany out of the Great Depression while the US and Britain were still mired in it. He repudiated the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles after World War One which included the payment of reparations which Hitler stopped. He remilitarized the Rhineland; he built the Luftwaffe. He annexed Austria. All these things were violations of the Treaty of Versailles, but they rebuilt the German economy. In terms of symbols and cultural values, Trump took it to the next level. The chief difference between Trump and Hitler, however, is that Hitler was a warmonger; Trump evidently is not. He has said he wants to end the wars that are raging today in Ukraine and the Middle East. As far as Ukraine is concerned, this might be a good thing. It is better that the killing stop than that national borders not be redrawn. That war is a proxy war between the US and Russia that never needed to be fought. And now US personnel are going into Ukraine for whatever supposed good reason. As soon as one of them is killed, the US will be in a direct confrontation with Russia. In 2014 Russia took over Crimea and there was never a peep out of the Obama administration or the European community that now says they are so threatened that Russia may take another piece of Ukraine. At least in that take over there was very little fighting and killing and there was no expenditure of billions of US dollars in a proxy war.

Another reason Trump won was that Merrick Garland didn't pursue the many criminal charges against Trump until it was too late. Why? Maybe he thought that things would die down first, that we were in a vulnerable period and he didn't want to incite more violence. It turned out to be a decision that enabled Trump to come back, reclaim the Presidency and have all charges against him dropped. No wonder he's out for retribution. Meanwhile, Trump was holding rallies, stage managing a comeback and eventually going all the way. Biden and Kamala were simply doing their job while Trump was putting on a show for the American people for four years! With the seriousness of the multiple charges against him, he wouldn't have been allowed to campaign again for the Presidency in any sane country. After Garland's delays, Trump's strategy of delay, delay, delay actually worked.

The notion that Democrats are only making an appeal to college educated voters is bogus. Her appeal was directly to the working class, despite the fact that only college educated voters, primarily, voted for her. There's a difference between who she was trying to help with her policies and who ended up voting for her. She didn't make an appeal to the college educated, but she ended up appealing to the college educated. That's not her fault. Finally, one needs to look at American culture (violent and vulgar) and the American electorate (violent and vulgar) to see that Trump is a perfect match with the American people, a majority of them. It IS who we are, and Trump is a perfect match! For a democracy to work a more sophisticated and educated electorate is necessary. One that is ignorantly persuaded by showmanship does not bode well for the future. In fact climate change will now, in Trump's words, do whatever the hell it wants.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Kamala Lost

by John Lawrence

She did not emphasize middle class tax cuts enough. They were certainly part of her program, and she would mention them in her stump speeches, but she needed to do a lot more than mention them. She needed to go on and on about them. She needed to compare them to the tax cuts given to the middle class by Trump, and not just say that Trump's cuts were mainly for the rich. To a large extent they were, but the middle class got at least something. She needed to emphasize how her middle class tax cuts compared favorably with the tax cuts Trump gave to the middle class, and not just say Trump's tax cuts were largely for the rich which of course they were.

Also Kamala and the Democrats were johhny-come-latelies to border security. They finally got on board with that, but saying that Trump defeated a plan in Congress that would have solved the problem was just not enough. Border security should have become a consensus issue between both parties long before it did. Democrats were late to the party. The idea that a couple could pay coyote fees of about $3000-4000 (data from the Mexican Migration Project) and crawl through a fence, request asylum and be given a court date 5 years hence during which time they could have 3 or 4 children who were legal US citizens is absolutely ridiculous. Then what are you going to do - deport the parents and leave their US citizen children here? It took Democrats far too long to get on top of this issue at least from a rhetorical perspective. The huge number that crossed during Biden's term doomed Kamala's potential term. The US has satellite technology that can spot a flea on a dog. Yet they can't use that technology to spot illegal entrants and immediately deport them. It doesn't make sense

I'm for increased legal immigration, but I'm also for strengthening the border to the point where any illegal immigration is next to impossible. The US spends a trillion dollars a year on its military and has military bases in almost every country in the world and yet cannot enforce a border so that people can only enter at legal ports of entry? Ridiculous! So now Trump gets to take credit for that solution, now that there IS a consensus about it. Democrats missed the ball and didn't articulate a coherent position successfully on this matter soon enough. As far as what to do about the illegals that are currently already here, that's a whole different matter. You can't really deport them if they have had legal US children citizens in the meantime. I guess they outsmarted the government, and in particular Joe Biden's government although to be fair Congress did nothing to help Biden solve that problem even after he was willing to do so. The mistake was to consider it a left-right issue. Left-right doesn't make sense any more. You don't have to position every issue on the left-right spectrum. Pragmatism should rule the day, and Kamala represented that, but it was too late.

Off the Top of My Head

The Structure of the US Winner Take All Voting System Guarantees a Binary Divide in the Voting Population

by John Lawrence

Every election in the US is a contest between two candidates. Third party candidates take votes away from the party they are closest to ideologically. This holds not only for the election of President, but for every other election due to the districting system itself. For candidates for Congress there is one winner per district. For election to the Senate the state is the district with two Senators from each state. However, each Senate seat is voted upon separately so that each seat represents a winner take all election. Senators are elected to six-year terms by the people of each state. Senators’ terms are staggered so that about one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years. Because of all the US winner take all elections, the nation is almost predetermined to create a two party system. The two party system almost predetermines that the country will be divided into two groups. So complaining that US citizens are divided is futile, and that any candidate will "bring us altogether" is next to impossible. Other countries which have proportional representation voting systems result in the fact that they are not so bitterly divided.

The US needs to change the structure of the voting system itself in order to create a nation which is not so divided between two sets of people. With proportional representation, third parties can get representatives elected more easily. With a different system than winner take all for President, it would be possible to vote for a third party candidate without that candidate being a "spoiler" who takes votes away from the party she is closest to ideologically. If districts were larger so that more representatives per district were elected at the same time, it would be possible for representatives from multiple parties to be elected simultaneously. Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. The key is that multiple representatives per district means that multiple viewpoints have a chance of being represented in a representative body.

The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections. The US seems stuck with an antiquated voting system which may be dooming it as a democracy. Other types of voting systems take into account a voter's second and third place choices not just their first place choice. In this way a better compromise which could be accepted by more people is possible. With a two party system, if one party takes over and refuses to play fair, a democracy can turn into a dictatorship. The US is teetering on the brink of such a scenario. When the nation becomes sclerotic in the sense that the voting system is not easily updated, it could break altogether much like a brittle, aged bone. Problems include the electoral college, the winner take all voting system, gerrymandering and the filibuster. The US seems incapable of changing any of these aspects. A new empire might have to be created in order for an updated, more fair and intelligent voting system to be implemented.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Harris is a Pragmatist, the Only True American Philosophy

by John Lawrence

Kamala wants to strengthen the border. That's supposedly a right wing issue. She wants to give the middle class a tax break. That's a right wing issue too. She wants to strengthen the safety net. That's supposedly a left wing issue. The division of the political spectrum into left wing and right wing issues doesn't make sense any more. No one seems to be interested in foreign policy as an issue in this election so left and right are moot in terms of foreign policy. I am so glad that Democrats have co-opted the tax issue. President Biden first caught on to this when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. This makes so much sense. Tax the rich, but give the middle class a tax break. Why haven't Democrats thought of making this the issue till recently? The only people opposing Kamala's suggested increased safety net provisions such as giving first time home buyers $25,000 for a down payment or increasing Medicare to incorporate home care for elders are right wing Republicans who don't believe the government should help anyone especially if it raises their taxes by one cent. Increasing the safety net does not necessarily mean anyone's taxes need to be increased. During the 2008 Great Recession, the government spent billions to bail out the banks without raising anyone's taxes. The US dollar is a fiat currency which can just be printed to pay for anything. Thanks to Modern Monetary Theory for explaining that. However, the danger in printing too much money is inflation which the MMT theorists have pointed out. Inflation has come back down to normal so that that shouldn't be an issue going forward. Whether the problem was the dollar giveaways during the pandemic or other issues has not been conclusively determined. The point is that there is not necessarily a cause and effect situation between taxation or lack thereof and government spending.

So the difference between Republican proposed tax breaks and Democratic proposed tax breaks should be made clear. Republicans, Trump in particular, will give huge tax breaks to the rich and modest tax breaks to the middle class with the resulting deficit being added to the national debt. Kamala's tax breaks would only affect the middle class while increased taxes on the rich would pay for them. Thus would not add to the national debt. In fact taxes should be raised on the rich not only to use the money to benefit the middle class but just on principle, the principle being that economic inequality is at levels not seen since the era of kings, monarchs, emperors and czars, in other words not since feudalism. Extreme economic inequality bodes ill against a democracy which must have a strong middle class in order to stay a democracy. Otherwise, you have extremely rich guys like Elon Musk out there buying votes with his million dollar a day giveaways.

I predict this election will see women outvoting men so that Kamala will win. It won't be men electing the first woman President; it will be women doing it. Men will do their best to elect Trump. They all seem to be making excuses for him saying "he doesn't really mean that" to all his outrageous statements. There's no reason not to think that Trump is a dangerous guy who will transform the nature of America and estrange our allies by implementing a radical change in foreign policy. There needs to be a change from Biden's foreign policy in order to end the two wars, but it should be done in association with our allies, not by abruptly separating from our allies. The people out there who are apologists for Trump need to think twice before voting for him.The American economy is the envy of the world, not in the toilet as some of them would have you believe. We need continuity with the Biden government, not a radical change. Inflation is under control. The main economic issue is the high cost of real estate and rent. Kamala has proposed specific plans to deal with this; Trump has not. Trump's proposed tariffs would add to the financial burdens of the middle class. Any one who has a brain in their head will vote for Kamala. Unfortunately, there are many Americans that do not.

Off the Top of My Head

The Economist Says the US Economy is the Envy of the World: How Dumb Can Half of Americans Be Who Think Trump Would Do a Better Job on the Economy?

by John Lawrence

The October 19, 2024 edition of the Economist headlines that the US economy is the envy of the world. Yet Biden is given hardly any credit for a good economy. Why that is? The only explanation is that at least half of US citizens are terribly ill informed which is another way of saying they're ignorant. Probably because they listen to news sources totally biased against Joe Biden, the Democrats and everything they stand for. The dumbing down of American is exemplified by the fact that at the Republican convention the high point was when Hulk Hogan ripped off his shirt. Dumbing down? To the max. The cultural divide between red states and blues states may be mutating, but, as Fareed Zakaria has characterized it, it is still there. It's a divide between college educated and non-college educated people and it's a divide between men and women. One could even go so far as saying it's a divide between the well-informed and the ignorant or between the smart and the dumb. Trump's cult of personality has drug all of one side of this divide into his camp. Kamala and the Democrats represent the other side of this divide.

The left right political spectrum makes no sense any more. Unless, that is, it can be said that the left represents an intelligent approach to the problems of American society and the right represents a bunch of angry, hateful people. The right, as represented by Trump, seems to be only interested in creating an alternative universe in which facts don't matter and only an entertaining form of spite does. Half of America seems to be complicit in Trump's lies and bellicosity. Half of America seems to be entertained by Trump's antics. Half of America seems to look no farther than a bunch of symbols of patriotism characterized by Trump flags and even Trump God Bless the USA Bibles (made in China).

The American economy has now been characterized as having achieved a "soft landing." "I think we should declare a soft landing now," said James Bullard, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in an interview with CNN earlier this month. 

American shoppers continued to fuel economic growth in the third quarter with their spending, according to the report. That marked the biggest contributor to GDP growth in the third quarter by far. Consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic output. Spending accelerated sharply in the third quarter, driven by purchases of big-ticket items, while spending on services eased a bit.

So why are so many voters so concerned with the economy? Why is this the biggest issue for so many voters? The American economy is the envy of the world. However, just because "the economy" is doing so well doesn't mean that all those within it are doing well. We would have to look at the distribution of income and the distribution of wealth. Some well off people could be doing most of the spending while others have very little to spend. 31.3% of the households make less than $50,000 a year. 27.8% make between $50,000 and $100,000, and 40.9% make over $100,000. If a household is making less than $50,000 a year, they are certifiably poor. Those making $50,000 to $100,000 are probably lower middle class. They are those who probably cannot afford to buy a house, but are able to afford to pay rent. 40.9% are making over $100,000. Those making over $100,000 are probably the ones doing all the spending making the economy "the envy of the world". What about the distribution of wealth? The bottom 50% own 3% of the wealth. Obviously they don't own assets such as a house. They are renters and will remain so. Between 50% and 90% of the households own 31% of the wealth so 10% of households own approximately two thirds of the wealth. According to the latest Gallup poll, only about 54% of Americans own any stocks. Meanwhile, only about 63% of Americans own real estate according to the Census Bureau. So income and wealth are not evenly distributed over the American economy, and roughly the bottom 50% of American households have little wealth and meager incomes. The upper 50% are doing quite well, thank you.

Kamala Harris is a pragmatist. She's not ideologically driven. She combines both left and right pragmatically. But primarily she appeals or should appeal to the lower 50% in terms of income and wealth. The upper 50% traditionally vote Republican. However, Trump has attracted a cult following which includes a lot of lower income and lower wealth people. These people are voting against their self interest thinking that Trump is going to help them economically more than Kamala would. Then Kamala is attracting a lot of higher income people who want the US to remain a democracy governed by the rule of law and also want reproductive freedom. That's why traditional voting patterns are somewhat obsolete.

Off the Top of My Head

Rudy Giuliani Was Wrong and He Was Made a Fool Of

by John Lawrence

Why are half the people in the country, in which half the people consider Trump a fascist, still willing to vote for him? Rudy Giuliani said the following at Trump's January 6, 2020 rally:

“Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of, but if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail,” he told the crowd that day. “So, let’s have trial by combat.”

Well, Rudy was wrong, and he was made a fool of. Rudy Giuliani must give control of luxury items and his Manhattan apartment to the Georgia election workers he defamed, a judge has ruled. He must feel pretty foolish by now.

So why are so many people still supporting Trump? Because they are complicit in his lies, and, if he is made a fool of, they all collectively will be made fools of. This is why so many will vote for Trump. They think that by doing so, they will be vindicated and not made fools of. If Trump is elected, history about January 6 will be rewritten. He will free all the "hostages" currently serving jail time because of their role in the insurrection. They will be honored as heroes. All the lawsuits against Trump will magically disappear. All the Trump supporters complicit in his lies will be exonerated. However, if Trump is not elected and Kamala wins, he will face the consequences of several lawsuits and could go to jail. All his supporters collectively, in addition to Rudy Giuliani, will have been made fools of, and none of the January 6 rioters will get out of jail, much less will they be honored.

The 2024 US Presidential election in many ways will be a watershed moment. The whole nation in effect will have to live a lie if Trump is elected, and, if he's not, half the nation who believed in Trump will have been delivered a blow to their collective egos. If Trump is elected, the whole world will be changed. Instead of the US being the world's primary leading power, the one that the whole world looks up to, it will instead be only in it for itself making itself great again by withdrawing from the world community. The American empire with 750 military bases in 80 countries around the world would presumably be shut down and the resultant savings be allocated elsewhere presumably to make America great again.

The American Empire will probably come to an end if Trump is elected. Our European allies wouldn't trust us any more. Vladimir Putin would be vindicated and Ukraine partitioned. Russia would have a free hand in Ukraine. Netanyahu would have a free hand in the Middle East. Republican whip Tom Emmer said on CNN that "the American people are only interested in the economy" or words to that effect. That's all the German people were concerned about in the 1930s, and Hitler delivered on that. I doubt if Trump could be as clever. Trump's tariffs would destroy the American economy and possibly land the whole world in a Depression. The American experiment in democracy would be over. As Benjamin Franklin said, "It's a republic if you can keep it." In order to keep it, Kamala Harris must be elected. The alternative is fascism.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Equals Pragmatism

by John Lawrence

Last night on the Town Hall Kamala made it clear that she is a pragmatist. This makes a lot of sense since the old political left right spectrum in and of itself doesn't make sense any more. Take the border for instance. There is a consensus that no one should be coming across the border illegally. Even if applying for amnesty there is a legal and an illegal way to do it. Enough resources need to be applied to the border to make sure that the only option for people wanting to come into the US is the legal option. On this both Democrats and Republicans finally agree. Pragmatism is the penultimate American value. As Kamala said she just wants to "get stuff done."  As to whether or not her administration would be "just a continuance of the Biden administration," what difference does it make? Joe Biden did more for the American economy since Franklin Roosevelt. Most of this was directed towards sorely needed infrastructure improvement. American infrastructure has not kept up with most of the rest of the developed world. Now with the weather disasters caused by climate change, it needs to be hardened and improved that much more. However, all a lot of Americans, including those who can most afford it, seem to be fixated on is the price of groceries.

As for fracking, even under the Biden administration, there has been a capitulation to the fossil fuel industry and a realization that the American people will not sacrifice their lifestyles in order to combat climate change. Therefore, not only fracking but every other concession to fossil fuels has been made in order to keep gas prices low. The fact is that renewable energy production has fallen far short insofar as providing all of our energy needs. The demand for energy has outstripped the increase in renewable energy production. Hence, Kamala, not to mention Joe Biden, is now for fracking. So climate change continues apace. Weather disasters will get worse. Instead of describing floods as "1000 year floods," we should now be describing them as "twice a year floods." Americans seem to accept these weather disasters as long as the Federal government provides the money to rebuild after the disaster takes place. The insurance market is a different story. Private insurance will no longer be available in many regions of the country. Perhaps people who want to relocate out of disaster prone areas should study the insurance maps to see where insurance is available and where it is not, and then make their choices.

Romans were bought off from thinking critically by "bread and circuses." Americans seem to be following the same pattern. Instead of being concerned about climate change and infrastructure development to mitigate against climate change, Americans complain about grocery prices while attending concerts where the ticket prices are in the thousands of dollars. In fact the ones who complain about grocery prices the most are those who can well afford them, those for whom grocery prices are a minimum part of their budgets. Americans have been trained to only think about their own personal economic situation and not about the good of the world, not about helping those whose economic situations are much worse. People is Gaza are starving. People in Sudan are starving. People in Cuba don't have any electricity. UNHCR most recently estimated that, by the end of 2023, for the first time in recorded history, the number of people forcibly displaced is now over 117.3 million, with over 31.6 million refugees under UNHCR's mandate and another 6 million Palestinian refugees. These people have far more to worry about than grocery prices and that's if even groceries are available at all.

As for Kamala, sure her administration would be a continuation of the Biden administration and that's a good thing. Part of Biden's Build Back Better plan was to expand Medicare to provide for in home caregivers. That part was stripped out of the infrastructure bill due to compromises with Republicans. Now this is part of what Kamala wants to do - to pick up pieces previously rejected by Republicans. Of course she can't say that. She will be branded an extreme leftist by Republicans just for wanting to help people and improve the lives of Americans. In the final analysis though, Kamala is a pragmatist just wanting to "get stuff done" while Repiublicans are still down the Qanon rabbit hole palavering about inconsequential things that have nothing to do with anything.

Off the Top of My Head

Which is a Better form of Government: a Democracy or a Meritocracy

by John Lawrence

In a democracy, you get the most popular people in government. In a meritocracy you get the most qualified people in government. Or is there some synthesis that combines the two in a harmonious manner? In a democracy in order to get the best people elected, what is needed is an intelligent and well informed electorate. If what exists is the opposite, the government that results will be second rate at best. Just because politicians are popularly elected does not mean that they are the best people for the job. So what is the alternative? If you could get the best people in government without their being popularly elected, wouldn't this be preferable to a democracy? The problem is, who are the best people, and, even if you could identify them, how do you have a procedure for getting them into government? Would you, for example, consult all the renown political science professors at major universities and ask them all to come up with a slate of people that they think are the most highly qualified for having the highest positions in government? And then winnowing down that list to the required number? That's not a bad idea actually. Highly intelligent people such as college professors might be better choosers than average Joes. However, in a democracy it's the average Joes that make the actual decisions about who gets elected. Or maybe the college professors should choose the nominees who are then voted upon by the electorate.

In China politicians are popularly elected at the local level. Then those politicians select the representatives at the regional level, and then those politicians select the national assembly. So China is a democracy at the local level, and supposedly, a meritocracy at the next two levels. However, the communist party controls the nominations at all levels. In the US the various political parties control the nominations. Usually this boils down to two parties. The all important nominating process determines the quality of those who are elected. So who are the best people to determine who should be nominated for the people to vote on whether for President or for representatives? Obviously, any party or group should be able to nominate anyone. In China no one is likely to be nominated unless they support the principles of the communist party. It's a one party system. The US is basically a two party system because the voting system itself tends to preclude third parties. Neither system really guarantees that the best people, in terms of a meritocracy, are nominated or elected.

Another problem is the nature of the electorate itself. If the voters vote just in terms of their self interest, will the resulting elected body represent a meritocracy? Does the sum of self interests equal the best possible national representative body? In the current US election for President, the chief issue among the voters seems to be the economy. The American economy is currently the envy of every other country in the world. Yet all the voters seem to be concerned about is which nominee will make them personally better off. The voters are oblivious to other issues such as the two wars going on or climate change or the millions of people who are refugees in the world and have nothing. In short they don't seem to be interested in issues that affect the world at large. They are only interested in their own narrow economic interests. This is possibly because of the American ethos which encourages the pursuit of self interest or the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence. I would assume that a meritocracy would be equally concerned about the well being of its citizens as well as the well being of the planet earth without which everyone suffers.

Perhaps a group of respected and accomplished citizens whether they be political science professors or others should nominate the representatives who are then voted on by the public. But then the voting system itself would have to be changed from the winner take all majority rule system to a much better system. Even more important is taking the money out of the political process. As it is now, the US is a plutocracy in which Kamala Harris has raised a billion dollars to support her efforts to get elected President. Elon Musk purportedly is giving a million dollars a day to voters who will vote for Trump. Money totally distorts the political process, and self interested voters totally ignore the crucial issues of climate change and world peace. Voter self interest is not enough to give rise to a healthy planet that takes into account the well being of all peoples.

Off the Top of My Head

The US is Similar to Weimar Germany

by John Lawrence

In the 1930s the democratic government in Weimar Germany couldn't get much of anything done. It was largely because of this hapless democratic republic that Germany went for an autocrat that actually got a lot done because an autocracy doesn't have to deal with feckless bureaucrats in a democratic republic. The Weimar Republic came into being after Germany lost World War I. Germany suffered hyper inflation partly as a result of the large reparations Germany was required to pay as a result of having lost the war. Wikipedia says: "The Great Depression of October 1929 severely impacted Germany's tenuous progress; high unemployment and subsequent social and political unrest led to the collapse of Chancellor Hermann Müller's grand coalition and the beginning of the presidential cabinets. From March 1930 onwards, President Paul von Hindenburg used emergency powers to back Chancellors Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen and General Kurt von Schleicher. The Great Depression, exacerbated by Brüning's policy of deflation, led to a surge in unemployment. On 30 January 1933, Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor to head a coalition government; Hitler's far-right Nazi Party held two out of ten cabinet seats." Inflation? Unemployment? Is there anything in common here with the US circa 2024. Hitler got rid of the reparations and other undesirable terms of the World War I peace settlement. The point is that autocrats can get things done that democratic governments may quibble over due to their not being in agreement as to how to proceed.

One of the impediments to a truly democratic election in the US this year is the same thing that has affected elections since 2000: the electoral college. This makes the US not a true democracy in terms of electing a President. A true democracy would be one in which every vote of every American counted. With the electoral college pretty much only the votes of certain swing states or battleground states mean anything. In fact the winner of the popular vote in 2000, Al Gore and 2016, Hillary Clinton, lost the US Presidency due to the electoral college. What a different country the US would be if those two would have been elected Presidents. There would have been no January 6, for instance. And the US would be much further ahead and in more of a leadership role in terms of climate change. In addition to the electoral college destabilizing the election for President in the US, we have a Congress that is dysfunctional. In the Senate opposing parties keep filibustering legislation efforts by the opposite party, and in the House, they don't seem to be able to agree on a budget until the last minute to keep the government in business.

So autocrats offer a way out of the morass of democratic dysfunction. Hitler did it in 1930s Germany albeit with disastrous results for the Jewish population in particular and the world in general. For democracy to work, voters have to be relatively knowledgeable and sophisticated. Autocrats will misrepresent and lie about the opposing party and the state of the nation. Voters have to have the mental wherewithal to see through the lies and evaluate the situation with some degree of intelligence. Autocrats offer simple solutions to difficult problems. If elected they don't need the agreement of Congress especially if Congress is dysfunctional and can't come to any agreement about anything. They get things done because they don't need agreement from a representational body.Things often function more smoothly because you don't have to compromise between opposing parties. The US has to reform certain aspects of the US system or be in jeopardy of an autocrat taking over. Those aspects in particular are the electoral college and the filibuster.

Off the Top of My Head

Will Freedom of Speech Be the Death Knell of the American Empire?

by John Lawrence

Over the course of history empires have come and gone. The Assyrian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire. One of the hallmarks of the American Empire - and the US is a veritable empire - is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is something that some other countries don't tolerate, but in America it is tolerated even when it provides an avenue for misinformation and disinformation. Social media has just become one big rumor mill that threatens to bring the whole edifice of American democracy down. When Americans can't trust their government and government spokespeople as to what's really happening, we're in big trouble. The recent disasters of Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton have offered ample opportunities for those who spread lies and rumors to operate. Just for comparison, in countries where there is not Freedom of Speech,how much misinformation aimed at the government would be tolerated? Not much. For instance, in Russia, they would be sent to the gulag. In America, Freedom of Speech is causing the levers of government to spin out of control. It's a question of stability verses freedom. China, for instance, values stability more than freedom. In the US there is major instability because unlimited freedom of speech is entertained.

AP News reported: After the deluge, the lies: Misinformation and hoaxes about Helene cloud the recovery,

WASHINGTON (AP) — The facts emerging from Hurricane Helene’s destruction are heartrending: Businesses and homes destroyed, whole communities nearly wiped out, hundreds of lives lost, hundreds of people missing.

Yet this devastation and despair is not enough for the extremist groups, disinformation agents, hucksters and politicians who are exploiting the disaster to spread false claims and conspiracy theories about it and the government’s response.

The question is is unlimited freedom of speech something that should be tolerated at the expense of the stability of American democracy? Obviously, a country like Russia does not tolerate it. What needs to be understood is that throughout most of history it was anathema to criticize a monarch or emperor or autocrat whether in Russia or anywhere else. European history from the demise of the Roman Empire was filled with autocratic monarchs and kings who wouldn't tolerate freedom of speech. Russian history in particular has never known political leaders other than autocrats whether they be Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Stalin or Putin. American democracy is a relatively new experiment brought into existence primarily by the French Enlightenment. Freedom versus stability is something worth considering, and where should be the line between them such that people have as much freedom as possible while not threatening the stability of the empire.

The question is should lies and misinformation and disinformation be tolerated by the American government when unlimited freedom threatens its very demise. January 6 is a testament to the fact that lies almost brought the government down. Would censorship of misinformation and disinformation be something worth considering? Should unlimited freedom of speech be curtailed? It's a sad state of affairs when people are biting the hand that feeds them due to freedom of speech which allows for the lies being perpetrated by those seeking political advantage. Social media needs to be reined in. Censorship is a dirty word but America is tolerating lies and disinformation at its peril. Freedom of Speech does not encompass crying Fire in a crowded theater, but much more than that should be circumscribed.

Off the Top of My Head

Hardening American Infrastructure

by John Lawrence

It's hard not to believe that, if power lines throughout the south had been undergrounded prior to Hurricane Helene, lights, heat, air conditioning and power would still be on. I believe that a massive infrastructure program should be undertaken to mitigate the effects of climate change. Certainly we have seen an increase of massive flash flooding not only from hurricanes but also from regular, everyday rain storms. Cell service could also be maintained if it were provided by satellites instead of ground networks the equivalent of telephone poles. This is even possible today with some cell phones which have an emergency provision that allows communication via satellite when out of cell phone range in emergencies. Well, climate change will bring one emergency after another. If power and communications were hardened, the effects of widespread devastation wrought by hurricanes such as Helene could be mitigated. Undergrounding the electricity grid would prevent the massive power outages that Helene caused.

On June 26, 2024 U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced $1.8 billion in awards from the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) discretionary grant program for 148 projects across the country. [This] announcement brings the total amount of Biden-Harris Administration RAISE grants to more than $7.2 billion for over 550 projects across the country. ... “After decades of underinvestment, the condition of America’s infrastructure is now finally getting better instead of worse – and today we proudly announce our support for 148 more projects in communities of every size across the country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re funding projects across the country to make roads safer, make it easier for people to move around their community, make transportation infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, and improve supply chains to keep costs down for consumers.” This is a step in the right direction, but only a step. A much bigger effort is necessary to really harden America's infrastructure to mitigate climate change.

Problem is that many voters would resist an increase in their taxes that might be necessary to provide the money for all the work that needs to be done to underground utilities around the country. Americans would always prefer to have the money in their private pockets to spend as they choose rather than to provide the funds necessary for the government to improve infrastructure. That's why the US lags far behind other advanced countries in infrastructure such as high speed trains which are common in many other countries. Americans seem to be willing to rewire and repole electric lines after every storm rather than put the utilities underground so that that would no longer be necessary. Unfortunately, that procedure to "get the power back on" may be more trouble than its worth when the country is faced with massive storm after massive storm. A hardened electric and communications infrastructure would have facilitated relatives getting in touch with each other after Hurricane Helene rather than not knowing for days and even weeks whether or not their relatives were safe. Voters who will not vote to raise taxes to provide a safer and sounder and more advanced infrastructure are not doing themselves any favors in the long run, and the long run is almost here. In terms of climate change, it's already here.

Off the Top of My Head

It's a Once in 500 Year Flood Implies Things Are Going to Get Better When the Truth is Things Are Going to Get Worse.

by John Lawrence

Climate change and the changes in the weather that that implies are not going to ameliorate any time soon. Why? We are still dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with each succeeding year. What that means is that next year's hurricanes will be even worse than this year's hurricanes, not that "biblical" devastation this year will be followed by 500 years of relative peace and calm. Peoples' mindsets and calculations are severely off if they think that, if they can only see their way clear to rebuilding, they can look forward to an era of peace and prosperity. Just the opposite is true. We have made only paltry efforts at getting climate change under control by eliminating the need for fossil fuels. And also many areas struck by hurricanes this year haven't recovered from last year's hurricanes. People need to make rational decisions about where to live. In light of increased flooding and fires. it makes sense not to live in forested areas or near creeks and rivers. Too many towns, villages and cities are located right on creeks and rivers. These are places to get away from. Also get away from living right on the coasts. Coasts are eroding and houses are falling into the oceans. One needs to consider where to live based on climate change. Certain areas are more vulnerable than others, and it makes no sense to automatically rebuild in vulnerable areas as if that was some gauge of American ingenuity and resolve.

As of 2023, the average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 419.3 parts per million (ppm), marking a new record high, with a consistent upward trend observed throughout recent years; this data is based on measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where modern carbon dioxide records began in 1958. Each year the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. In order to get climate change under control, this number should be coming down. According to recent data, approximately 36 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are entering the atmosphere annually, with this number continuing to rise year after year due to human activities like burning fossil fuels. We are clearly losing the battle, and in fact politicians in the US have given up trying to limit fossil fuel production and use. There will be no limit on how much energy is consumed because this would limit GDP growth, that all important measure that trumps climate change. And the fact is that renewable energy is not coming online faster than the increase in energy demand. Even if all cars were to be converted to all electric vehicles tomorrow, it would increase the demand for electrical energy which only could be supplied by fossil fuels.

Cars could be considered as just another electrical appliance. There are government incentives to convert to all electric appliances whether it be heat pumps or induction stoves. The electrification of appliances will increase the demand for energy. This energy can't be supplied by renewables because there is just not enough renewable capacity. This is the fundamental dilemma in regard to the reduction of the use of fossil duels and consequently the reduction of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. In addition to the technical obstacles limiting our response to climate change, there are the political obstacles. No politician is willing to say that we must do with less in order to fight climate change as we were willing to do, for instance, to fight the Second World War. Telling people to reduce their consumption is a formula for losing political elections. The obvious result is that worsening weather debacles will continue and get worse. Insurance companies will not continue to insure properties located in zones that are subject to weather disasters. FEMA is running out of money. It just does not make any sense to automatically assume that after a disaster, one has to rebuild, that it would be unAmerican not to, a concession of defeat. In many cases it might make more sense to relocate to safer areas. The government could do us all a favor by locating safer living zones and red lining those ares that are prone to climate disasters.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Is Trump Spewing Lies and Misinformation? Because It Works!

by John Lawrence

What does this say about the electorate? A portion of them are dumb as Hell. They don't want the truth. They want entertainment, and Trump gives it to them. Whether it's Haitians eating dogs and cats or whatever. The stupider and less true, the better. Why don't other Republicans speak up and point out the stupidity of Trump's assertions? Because, in their minds, it's a winning strategy. They don't care if they win by telling lies or telling the truth. They just want to win. They just want power. Truth be damned. Democracy cannot last if a large proportion of the voters are a bunch of stupid ninnies who will vote for the person who entertains them the most. Democracy is predicated on having an intelligent and educated electorate. It's no wonder that most Trump voters are not college educated and most Kamala voters are. That's the difference between those who have a brain in their head who mostly vote Democratic and those who don't who mostly vote Republican. Trump is the perfect candidate actually because he appeals to the large segment of the electorate who just want to be entertained and will go along with any bullshit he says without critically examining it to determine whether it's true or factual.

Critical thinking is something that supposedly is learned in college. Hence the split between non college educated voters who mostly vote for Trump and college educated voters who will mostly vote for Kamala. An uneducated electorate are like sheep being led to slaughter. They think the economy under Trump when he was President was better than it was under Biden. Really? Trump gave $7 trillion worth of tax cuts mostly to the rich and added that much to the national debt. Biden, in addition to bailing out people and businesses during the pandemic was responsible for the Inflation Reduction Act which was a huge investment in the American people in terms of jobs. Then there was the Chips and Science Act which not only created jobs, but kept critical infrastructure in the US rather than depending on foreign suppliers. I could go on ... $35 a month insulin for Medicare recipients and blah blah blah ... To boot inflation has returned to normal, and I believe Biden is still President, isn't he?

Then there is the border where illegal crossings are at the lowest level since Biden took office as President.. NPR reported: "President Biden issued executive actions severely restricting asylum claims at the border, and migrants who cross are more likely to be removed from the country expeditiously. ... Due to this rule and Mexico’s beefed-up enforcement, unauthorized crossings in June [2024] hit the lowest level since President Biden took office in 2021." Why isn't Kamala touting this? Inflation is down and illegal border crossings are down, and yet Trump is considered by many to be better for the economy and immigration. Really? It's not Trump but those members of the electorate who have their heads up their collective asses. Trump is just doing what he thinks is a smart, winning strategy. It doesn't have to do with the truth or anything else as long as he thinks he can trick the voters into voting for him. These Trump voters don't care about facts. They just want to be entertained, and Trump is doing a good job at that. Smart guy, that Trump. Let's give him his due. However, democracy is predicated on an educated electorate which is capable of actually knowing what is good for them and their fellow citizens and what's not. Trump voters, who may be responsible for choosing the next President, are neither educated, critical thinkers or capable of telling truth from fiction.

Off the Top of My Head

Upgrading the UN Peacekeepers to UN Peacemakers

by John Lawrence

The problem with both ongoing wars is that there is no referee that can step in and separate the sides. President Biden appeals to Israel and Hamas to come to a cease fire, but neither side is listening to him. He leaves it up to them to come to a cease fire while having no means to actually force them to come to a cease fire. Of course he could stop supplying Israel with money and weapons, but by not doing so he leaves himself open to the accusation of being Netanyahu's patsy. When two children are caught fighting, a teacher steps in and separates the parties. In a prize fight, the referee steps in and separates the fighters when they are in a clinch. Rather than let two belligerents continue fighting until they can come to an agreement among themselves to stop fighting, a stronger power might step in militarily to separate the fighters. This is not something Biden or any other leader is willing to do. It is something that can only be done by a neutral party, not someone who is allied or aligned with one of the belligerents.

It would be best if the power that steps in to separate the belligerents had the sanction of the United Nations. United Nations Peacekeepers have fulfilled something like that role, but without the wherewithal to actually enforce the peace rather than keeping the peace, a somewhat different situation. This is from their website: "UN Peacekeeping helps countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. We have unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy troops and police from around the world, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to address a range of mandates set by the UN Security Council and General Assembly." One of the principals for engagement of UN Peacekeepers is "consent of the parties." This limits their effectiveness. It is unimaginable that Israel and Hamas would consent to having UN Peacekeepers intervene. There has to be third party intervention that has teeth in it to force the parties to quit hostilities.

The same thing is true in Ukraine. A strong referee needs to step in to stop the fighting and force the parties to the bargaining table. Peace plans abound. A diplomatic settlement or a peace treaty needs to be enforced or at least facilitated. There are many out there. For instance freezing the front line and putting a peace keeping force there to separate the two parties. Then taking into account at the peace talks some compromise between the maximal demands of both parties. However, a third party stepping in to stop the fighting and demanding that the parties proceed to the peace table would be the least that should be accomplished. Continuing the destruction of life and property on both sides is accomplishing nothing except for the fact that Ukraine will never be accepted as a member of NATO as long as a war of attrition is ongoing. Perhaps that should be the starting point: that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO in the foreseeable future. That's better than ongoing war.

In the war in Gaza there is no lack of officials calling for a two state solution. Problem is that neither Israel or Hamas is interested. Therefore, a two state solution must be imposed by a neutral power that has the wherewithal to do so. The UN Peacekeepers need to be upgraded to the UN Peacemakers with the authority and power to enforce a peace between belligerents and bring them to the bargaining table.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Kamala Flip-Flopped on Fracking

by John Lawrence

Unfortunately, the increase in renewable energy is outpaced by the demand for energy so that under present conditions renewables will never be sufficient to replace fossil fuels. In fact production of fossil fuels will only increase as long as we, as a world, are committed to meeting the demand for energy. Therefore, Kamala, as well as Biden before her, realized that, unless they were going to preach austerity, fossil fuel production needed to be increased not decreased. Fracking produces natural gas which is considered a "cleaner" fossil fuel than coal. The problem is that the continued use of fossil fuels is devastating the environment. It is accelerating climate change. It is accelerating the devastating 1000 year floods which are occurring far more often than 1000 years. It is increasing shore line erosion. It is resulting in year around fire seasons. It is melting glaciers and increasing droughts.

So is there any way out of this dilemma? I think nuclear energy is the only possible way to meet the increasing needs for energy which the people of the earth seems to need and require. Bill Gates has invested in nuclear energy plants. He has broken ground on a novel nuclear power plant in Wyoming. The pilot Natrium nuclear power plant in Kemmerer will be the first of what TerraPower officials hope will be a worldwide fleet of new nuclear energy facilities.

“This reactor exists inside a virtual model, and it’s been working really well inside the computer,” Gates said light-heartedly, eliciting some laughter. “It’s a little bit harder to make it work out there. But that’s what we’re starting on today. This is a big step towards safe, abundant, zero-carbon energy.”

Technically, Gates and others marked the groundbreaking of a liquid sodium testing facility — a critical component of TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear power plant slated to begin operating here in 2030. The event marked what developers, which includes the U.S. Department of Energy, say is the “first advanced nuclear project in the Western Hemisphere to move from design to construction.”

Gates-backed TerraPower touts the Natrium design as part of the industry’s “next generation” strategy to deploy nuclear power throughout the nation and across the globe — a low-carbon alternative for stable electrical generation and a means to address planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions while meeting growing demand for electricity, according to the company.

Rather than the industry’s existing standard of massive nuclear power plants that consume a lot of water, Natrium is much smaller and will use liquid sodium to cool the reactor, which is designed to generate a consistent 345 megawatts of power — enough energy to power about 250,000 homes — with a capability of ramping up to 500 megawatts for short periods, according to the Bellevue, Washington-based TerraPower.

So what's the drawback? It takes money and time to build these nuclear plants. So far even one has barely got off the ground. It won't be operational till 2030!! It would take a massive commitment on a national, even a world wide, level to go this route to provide the energy needs of an increasingly demanding world. As the changing climate is already wreaking havoc all around the world, time is not on the side of human civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Hype Over AI

by John Lawrence

There is much hand wringing over whether or not AI will be used for good purposes or bad. The proprietors of AI are mostly concerned about making money, not about how to use their products for good. That's the capitalistic system. And one can rest assured that one of the most interested parties in AI is the defense establishment. They are always interested in using the most advanced technology in order to create even more sophisticated and destructive weapons in accordance with the theory that, if they don't create them, their enemies will create them first, and then they will be in a less advantageous position. Of course this is always premised on the consideration that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. Our supposed enemies use the same rationale with the result that the world becomes ever more dangerous as both sides develop more and more destructive weapons. AI is just the latest chapter of this merry-go-round.The problem is that the tech companies creating AI are just in it for the money, and the military-industrial complex, in addition to just being in it for the money, is in it for the rationale that we better use AI to create advance weapons first so that our "enemies" don't get them first.

Has anybody considered that some entity, whether it be government or private enterprise, should adopt the position that AI or any other technology should be used not only for good but for the purpose of creating peace in the world? No, no entity is concerned about that. If government was concerned, they would be using some of the trillion dollar military-industrial complex budget to develop peaceful enterprises in the world. Instead while a trillion dollars yearly is spent on defense/offense, a paltry $400 million is spent on the Peace Corps. So that's where our values are. We value a strong defense, not strong efforts to make the world a more peaceful place, and we value financial competition to make as much money as we can off of any new technology. Those are the imperatives. Peace is thought to be the absence of war rather than building enterprises that would prevent war in the first place. The interstices between wars should be used to prevent the next war, but instead the only prevention is thought to be to have such a strong military apparatus that no one would think about stepping out of line with the line being defined by us or whoever is the most powerful empire at any point in time. Empires come and go over the long term, but the mental imperative of using all resources to create the most powerful military establishment never changes.

The result is that war is inevitable as it has been for millennia. In fact for thousands of years war has been a way of life. Empires have been created because someone came along who was in a position to create them whether that was Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great or Napoleon. No one ever called Jesus "the Great" because he didn't create an empire. He just preached peace as the foremost value. Too bad no one in a position of power ever took him seriously. That was not realpolitik. Instead, religion was used to placate and sublimate the masses while the war machines of the various empires ground on until thy eventually were subdued or wore themselves out or went bankrupt. AI does not presage a new millennium. It's just more of the same. It will be used beneficially in medicine and a few other enterprises. But its main development will be in the art of war wherein battlefields are populated not by humans but by robots. The destruction however will remain the same or worse. Not the military but innocent civilians will bear the cost of death and destruction as already has been taking place in modern warfare. Not military assets but civilian real estate will be destroyed. Such a shame that technological advances have been deployed more in the service of war than in the service of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Doesn't Know the Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

by John Lawrence

The Trump campaign is saying that they will bring grocery and housing prices down. To address high prices, Trump said he would sign an executive order on his first day sworn in as president “directing every cabinet secretary and agency head to use every power we have to drive prices down, but we’re going to drive them down in a capitalist way, not in a communist way,” he said. Really? In a capitalist economic system, which the US certainly is, prices are set by the market, not by the government. Now Trump proposes to use government to interfere with the market to bring prices down. That's anti-capitalistic. So exactly how do you bring prices down in a capitalist way without interfering with the market? You can't. If you're a capitalist, you let the market set prices, whatever they turn out to be. So Trump, a purported capitalist, accuses Kamala for being a communist or a socialist while he turns out to be one himself. Kamala has proposed a Federal ban on price gouging. Exactly how that would work is unclear. So both Trump and Kamala are proposing to use government to interfere in the market to bring prices down.

So what could be done to bring prices down? Bringing down prices is not really the problem. Making sure that every American can afford groceries and housing is. There is precedent for government supported housing also know as public housing for people that can't afford a house in the market economy. Kamala's proposal to grant first time buyers $25,000 for a down payment is also a good idea. That doesn't interfere with the price setting mechanism of the capitalist economy. Government has also supplied food for poor people whether it be food stamps or SNAP. So the market still sets the price of housing and groceries for those who can afford to buy these things in the market economy. This amounts to socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich in contrast to the situation that now exists which is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Trump's $7 trillion tax cut amounted to socialism for the rich.

The US has a mixed economy. It is partly capitalist and partly socialist as are most eonomies of advanced industrial nations. If Trump were a pure capitalist he would say that the market should set prices for housing and groceries, and that he as President would have nothing to do with that. But since he like most Republicans are hypocrites who will say anything to gain political power, he is all concerned about prices. Kamala by contrast does not claim to be a pure capitalist so she sincerely wants to help people at the low end of the economic spectrum to be able to afford adequate housing and nutrition. Exactly what programs she wants to implement do not have to be spelled out at this point in the campaign. The point is that she sincerely wants to help people at the lower part of the economic spectrum. Trump could care less about them. He only wants to help his rich billionaire friends.

Off the Top of My Head

An Academy of Peace: What a Novel Idea

by John Lawrence

We have several academies of war - the US Naval Academy, West Point, the US Coast Guard Academy, the US Air Force Academy. Is there a US academy of peace? We spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. How much do we spend on the peace industry? Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. ... Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million. We spend a pittance on peace, a fortune on war. As the world's leading super power, we spend our money on what we value most - war. Do the big wigs in the American government even have an idea of what it would take to create a peaceful world? What would be the steps that should be taken to prevent war before it starts. One thing is to work toward eliminating poverty and disease in the world. We should have a world in which everyone has at least the basics for a decent life. That means adequate sanitation, adequate clean water supply, adequate shelter, adequate nutrition, adequate health care.

Fact: Over 1.5 billion people still do not have basic sanitation services, such as private toilets or latrines. Of these, 419 million still defecate in the open, for example in street gutters, behind bushes or into open bodies of water. There is much work to be done here. Does the US have anything in its budget to upgrade the sanitation level for the rest of the world? No, they are too much concerned with fighting the next war, spending billions on the most advanced military systems. Such a simple thing as improving sanitation in the world is something the US as a country is not really concerned about. Yet there is a connection between personal well being and peace. People that are at least basically well off are not inclined to go to war. War seems like a good alternative if the alternative is poverty. Throughout history the war making class has always been more prosperous than the peasantry. It's stlll true today.

So do our leaders have the faintest ideas about how to create peace ... or only how to win wars. There is never enough money to do the things that might result in a more peaceful world, but there is plenty of money for fighting wars. What would be some good ideas for creating a more peaceful world? Maybe citizen to citizen interchanges with countries who are deemed to be out "enemies." Maybe spending more money on creating diplomats and diplomacy. Maybe not characterizing any country as an "enemy"? Maybe creating the conditions for peace. Maybe two years of required national service in the Peace Corps as an alternative to the military with the same benefits? There's a song, "I'm not going to study war no more." Maybe creating more peace workers than soldiers, sailors and airmen. I think more results could be realized by spending less money on war. Peace should not really cost that much. What is costly is war. More money has been spent on it over the years than any other thing. It's the main thing that tax money has been spent on for millennia. It's what bankrupted France in the reign of Louis XIV. And after all the wars, France's boundaries remained the same as they were at the beginning of Louis' reign.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala: Just Ignore the Insults and Keep Smiling

by John Lawrence

Trump's MO is to say outrageous things, and then get pundits to mull them over and candidates to defend themselves. Instead, just ignore them, and they will fall with a thud. Don't get involved with Trump's lies and insults. Just don't respond. Same thing for Tim Walz. Ignore anything that's said about his teaching, coaching, military service etc. The comments by JD Vance and Trump aren't worth responding to. Just ignore them and power on. Put forth your hopes, your vision and your agenda. Better not to get down in the mud and wrestle. Just keep on keeping on. It's not worth engaging with the likes of Trump. You don't really have to.

All Kamala needs to do is what she thinks is most propitious to getting more people to vote for her. She doesn't have to do what the pundits want her to do. She doesn't have to do what Trump wants her to do. She just needs to do whatever she thinks will get her elected. Obviously, Kamala's constituency is different from Trump's constituency. She appeals to women more so than men. Men, especially white men, are Trump's constituency. This election is about a gender divide as well as a black white divide. So probably it is about whose constituency is more excited and more committed to actually voting. Will voters study the issues and then make an intelligent, informed decision? I doubt it for the most part. This election is about how many people on Kamala's share of the divide will actually get out and vote for her as compared with how many on Trump's share of the divide will get out and vote for him.

I have a feeling that Kamala's committed voters outnumber Trump's committed voters because women outnumber men, and women are more likely to actually vote than men. Also Kamala has a huge war chest - hundreds of millions of dollars. If she uses it wisely, she will have an advantage from that perspective. Trump is grasping at straws by bringing RFK Jr on board. That could actually dilute Trump's support.Trump is seemingly doubling down on the crazy. Kamala just needs to hold steady and affirm that she is the adult in the room. Her policy agenda so far is excellent. It's simple: a middle class tax break and affordable housing. Tax breaks are the only thing Trump has going for him but his are mainly for the rich. Kamala has successfully co-opted Trump's "no taxes on tips' pledge. She's out foxed him on taxes. What's left? Oh, the border. She has a good point about how Trump nixed a bipartisan border deal. However, she needs to be more forceful. Resources have to be spent on the border both in human and financial terms so that the border is impregnable and so that the only possible crossings are legal crossings. How about this as a slogan: reduce illegal crossings to zero while enhancing legal crossings so that the US gets the immigrant workers it needs. Those entering legally should be those that enhance the US' position in the world in terms of the economy and in terms of sheer humanity. Amnesty should be requested from the home country or a third country. Even if granted, it does not mean that they will wind up in the US. International law does not guarantee exactly which country a person granted amnesty will end up in. The important thing is that Kamala should co-opt Trump's position on the border while doing it in a humane way.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Isn't This Election About Climate Change?

by John Lawrence

Climate change is the overwhelming existential issue. Why is it hardly mentioned by Kamala or Trump. Not only does Trump not mention it, he denies it. Kamala like most Democrats takes it seriously, but her campaign hardly mentions it. Why? The American people care more about their individual economic situations than they do about the fate of the planet. There is no other explanation. We should have been doing ten times as much ten years ago to mitigate climate change. At this point the earth is facing a catastrophe in the very near future even though significant efforts are being made to mitigate it at the present time. However, it's not nearly enough. Furthermore, the American people are not even that interested in doing anything about it. If they were, Kamala, at least, would be talking about it and making it part of her campaign. Instead, she hardly mentions it. One can only conclude that, despite local catastrophes for relatively small numbers of people who have lost their homes in fires or floods, the great masses of Americans who have not really suffered have figured that climate change is no big deal as long as some catastrophe has not happened to them personally. This seems to me to be utter selfishnss, ignorance and lack of concern about the commons which is the earth itself. The prevailing attitude seems to be, as long as it doesn't happen to me, I'm not concerned about it. Instead, I will vote strictly on my own individual economic interests.

It is complete foolishness to place individual concerns above the fate of the planet. The implication is that selfish interests of those alive today trump the interests of the next generation and future generations. Americans have been taught to pursue their individual economic interests rather than to be concerned about the economic interest of the commons. We have been taught and it is part of American ideology that individual pursuits are more important than commpn pursuits. In fact common pursuits have been denigrated as socialism or communism. However, the earth and its systems are something that we all depend on. We depend on the fact that temperatures won't rise to 130 degrees F. If they do, individual pursuits will not matter any more except for those whose only interest is to profit off of others' misery. When every rain storm floods out towns and villages, will those not affected just continue to pursue personal profit? When large areas of the world become uninhabitable, will that simply drive up real estate values in the remaining regions? It's happening already. Insurance companies are raising rates in areas that are subject to flooding or fires. The handwriting is on the wall except the American people have blinders on. Some go as far as to insist on gas powered vehicles and complain bitterly if their right to own one were to be taken away.

American voters don't even list climate change as one of their main concerns. Does it even make the top ten? Not according to a Pew survey which rated climate change 18^th!! So are the American people not only completely selfish but also catastrophically ignorant? It would appear so. "There's no excuse for fiddling while the planet burns." So said Tom Steyer, an investor who has devoted his life to fighting climate change,. His book, Cheaper, Faster, Better is out now. What it boils down to is that, although catastrophic climate change is already baked in, we should do everything possible to electrify the planet so that at least some life survives at some level. That's better than throwing up our hands and saying, "Why bother? It's all over anyway."

Off the Top of My Head

Which Is Truer: The American People Are Hurting Because of the Cost of Eggs or The American People Are Well Off If They Can Spend Thousands on Taylor Swift Concerts and All the Airline Seats Are Filled

by John Lawrence

Apparently, there's a cutoff point above which Americans are all enjoying the good life and below which Americans are sweating their next rent payment. Kamala needs to get a graph which shows where this cutoff point is. Then she needs to appeal to the majority of voters not just a minority of Taylor Swift concert goers or those that can't pay their rent. According to the Fed's 2022 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households survey ..., 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense, up 5% from 32% in 2021 and back to 2019 levels. That means that 63% of Americans can cover a $400 emergency with no problems.Ticket prices to concerts and sports events are not cheap, and they sell out well in advance. Will the real American please stand up? Everyone complains about the cost of groceries, but does that include those filling airline seats, going to professional football games and paying big bucks filling seats at numerous events. Which is it? So, Kamala needs not to make a mistake by only appealing to 37% of Americans. She needs to appeal to the other 63% as well or at least a majority including both segments..

So what are the 63% of Americans concerned with? Reproductive freedom, for sure. It's very American to not want government telling you what you can and cannot do. They are also concerned about the border, and that includes Democrats as well as Republicans. Kamala should get out in front of Trump on this issue. Here's a policy for you: The goal should be not one illegal border crossing while increasing legal pathways for immigration. It's very simple. Forget all the ifs, ands, buts, whereases and other considerations. KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. That's the only thing Americans can understand. They don't read. They are only involved in politics to the extent that it is entertaining them, especially Trump voters. Kamala should go ahead and do what she did yesterday - make bold policy proposals without worrying about how we're going to pay for it. Leave it to the wonks to get down in the weeds about that. Most Americans don't care about the weeds. They just want to know what she will be trying to accomplish - where her head's at. It's all about getting elected. Did Trump ever get down in the weeds? He can't even make a coherent policy proposal. Kamala should outflank him.

It was a bold stroke to agree with Trump about not taxing tips. She neutralized that Trump initiative. Let Trump complain that it was his idea first. Who cares? Kamala is outsmarting Trump. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that. She should continue to out smart, finesse, outflank and do whatever it takes to get elected no matter how much Trump or the press or the pundits complain that she's not doing what they think she should do. It's not about doing what the pundits want you to do. It's about doing what will resonate with the American people and will get you elected. There is nothing that says you have to have a complete budget drawn up and every item accounted for before the election. Republicans have been relying on the fact that it's not illegal to lie yourself into a position of political power. They have been doing it for years. I don't advocate that Kamala should lie and for the most part Democrats have not lied, but they should not worry about accounting for every jot and tittle of the policy proposals. And she should do what she thinks she needs to do to get elected not what the pundits think she should do like give news conferences. If she thinks news conferences will advance her position, then she should do them. If not, then she shouldn't and the timing of everything is up to her. It's that simple.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Should Get Out in Front of Trump on Taxes

by John Lawrence

You know that Trump wants to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. These are the tax cuts that added $7 trillion to the national debt and primarily benefited the rich. Kamala should finesse this issue by taking it away from Trump. Here's how: make it part of her platform to keep the Trump tax cuts for the poor and middle class while sunsetting them for the rich. Even better use the money saved by sunsetting the tax cuts for the rich to give the poor and middle class an even bigger tax cut than the Trump tax cuts provided. The important thing is to get out in front of Trump on this issue. Let him respond to her. Trump will then be behind the eight ball on this and other issues. All Trump has to offer is personal attacks, and they seem to be falling flat with respect to Kamala. Her politics of joy seem to be winning, and the Democratic National Convention should add another boost to the Harris-Walz ticket.

CNBC has just reported: "[Harris'] policies include a ban on “corporate price-gouging” to lower the cost of groceries and prescription drugs, and they aim to expand affordable housing and cut taxes for the middle class." Of course nothing will happen unless Democrats also control both Houses of Congress. But that should not prevent Kamala or any other Presidential candidate from promising big things. The important words are "tax cuts for the middle class." Some of the other plans Kamala is espousing are "the first-ever federal ban on “corporate price-gouging” on food and groceries". Well, good luck with that. Good talking point though. Her other plans include encouraging builders to build starter homes and Federal help with down payments on a house. CNBC reported: "As the supply of entry-level homes expanded, the Harris plan would “provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners,” according to the fact sheet." $25,000 will not be much help for a down payment though. At 20% down, $25,000 would only provide a down payment on a $125,000 house. This might be possible in some parts of the country as real estate values vary a lot with region. However, in San Diego starter homes are around $1 million. It would be a non-starter.

Harris will also call for the U.S. to construct 3 million new housing units over the next four years. I don't think this would be very effective as long as those new houses are subject to the market. Market rate housing is the problem, not the solution. Preventing hedge funds from buying up houses and then renting them out would help the situation. Some mechanism must be found such that the average middle class family can afford to buy a house. The emphasis on affordable starter homes is a big deal. Democrats are also all about lowering the price of pharmaceuticals. We can thank Joe Biden for that. However, he won't get credit since that deal doesn't become effective for another year. The various other parts of Kamala's economic plan won't resonate all that well with the American public because they won't understand them. However, "tax cuts for the middle class" will resonate and will steal Trump's thunder. Let Trump complain, as he did with not taxing tips, that it was his idea first!

Off the Top of My Head

Problem With American Democracy: Voters Will Never Vote for a Tax Increase Even if It Would Prevent One Person Dying in the Street

by John Lawrence

Question: would you be willing to pay more taxes if it would house the unhoused? Hell, no. What's more, voters don't want even a shelter in their neighborhood. Any time one is proposed, a NIMBY group pops up to protest its location. People don't want to give up even a small portion of their income to help unfortunate Americans. That's the main reason why they vote Republican. They think Democrats will raise their taxes. Other countries like Sweden have high taxes in order to help people. They're called social democracies or welfare states. That's anathema in the United States. The philosophy in the US is "Devil take the hindermost." There is support for those at the top of the economic spectrum, but little if any for those at the bottom. In the US it's all about competition, and those who have failed in the competitive game of life don't deserve our help especially if that means we will have to pay higher taxes. We want tax relief not human relief for those who have lost out in the game of life. I've got mine, and I don't want the government taking one penny of it in higher taxes.

Since heat is becoming a major cause of death due to climate change, the unhoused will be dying on the streets in even greater numbers. But Americans couldn't be less sympathetic. If they were willing to have their taxes increased by one penny, the homeless problem could be solved. It will not be solved simply by building more housing. Housing in our economic system will be priced according to the market not according to affordability. Building more housing will not lower the price of market rate housing. There are too many other factors at play. Such as corporations buying up houses, fixing them up and renting them out. This trend will turn the younger generation in particular into a nation of renters, not a nation of middle class home owners. The younger generation cannot even afford starter homes! The investor class realizes that housing is an economic asset that offers more of a return on their money than even the stock market. Housing is an asset class, not something that satisfies a human need. Investors make money off of the debts of other people, especially the young. Mortgages, credit card  debt, rents - these are the investments that make rich people richer. There's a reason why bankers are rich. They make money off of human debtors. Eliminating debt eliminates the profits of the rich. No wonder there is so much resistance to Biden's student debt relief programs.

One of the Great Society's programs was the War on Poverty. In those days - the 1960s - the poverty stricken were at least presumably housed. Today we have a subclass of poverty - the homeless - which has become a veritable culture of homelessness. This is a culture that is beneath poverty. Even in Huxley's Brave New World, the lowest class, the Epsilons, were bred to be menial laborers. He didn't have the imagination to believe that there would be a class even lower than the Epsilons - the homeless. Presumably, Huxley's Epsilons were paid laborers; the homeless are people, primarily, who don't work at all but subsist on handouts, handouts which, however, are not sufficient to put a roof over their heads. The homeless are a class of expendables. They aren't valued enough as human beings to engage the charitable instincts of most Americans so that as a society we would be willing to see everyone housed, well fed and on the road to a productive life. Instead we blame the homeless themselves for their predicament. Charity is one thing; raising taxes to provide charity is quite another. So as a society we are willing to have people urinating and defecating on the streets, expending societal resources to clean up their trash and being treated to the spectacle of having to step over people zonked out on the sidewalk to get to our favorite restaurant.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Has One Job for the Rest of His Term: End the War in Gaza

by John Lawrence

IMHO Biden has been played by Netanyahu. Netanyahu's assertion that "there's no daylight between Israel and the US" seems to mean that Netanyahu can do whatever he wants to in Gaza, and the US will go along with it. Up to now this has been basically the case. Biden has pushed back a little against some of Netanyahu's more egregious operations in Gaza, but has essentially gone along with it on the theory that Netanyahu should do whatever he thinks is best. The US also has shipped Israel much weaponry without any conditions. Since October 7, the Biden administration has reportedly made more than one hundred military aid transfers to Israel, although only two—totalling about $250 million—have met the congressional review threshold and been made public. So Biden and the US are complicit in the destruction of Gaza and the killing of its people. By June 19, 2024, 37,396 people had been killed in the Gaza Strip since the attack by Hamas and the Israeli invasion in October, 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Most of those killed have been women and children. Biden has been weakly trying to get Netanyahu to rein in his over zealousness, but his imprecations have lacked any real teeth. He would have to threaten to hold up weapons shipments to Israel to really get Netanyhu's attention. Other than that, Netanyahu thinks he has free rein to do whatever he wants in Gaza.

Netanyahu says his goal is to root out and totally defeat Hamas yet so far he has mainly destroyed about half of Gaza's real estate. If Hamas and the hostages are underground in the tunnels, why hasn't the fighting occurred down there? Why has most of the destruction been on the surface if the real goal is underground? Why have bombs been dropped on supposed "safe areas"? It seems as if Netanyahu's intention is to make Gaza unlivable and to turn Gazans into refugees. The atrocities that occurred on October 7 were horrendous, but the destruction in Gaza only compounds that tragedy. Two wrongs don't make a right. President Biden has been taken advantage of by Netanyahu. He has used the traditional alliance between the US and Israel as an excuse to exercise a free hand in Gaza. He has shown no restraint nor has he shown any interest in a long term solution to the situation other than total destruction of Gaza. A two state solution has no interest for Netanyahu. He is playing Biden and the US while pursuing the goal of making Gaza a waste land. For too long Biden has given Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt.

Biden has been involved in one way or another with both the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza. He needs to bring at least the war in Gaza to an end before the end of his term if he doesn't do anything else. No doubt the war in Ukraine is intractable for Biden to end it. His ego is too involved in that war. However, he could have a decisive part in ending the war in Gaza. He would effectively have to stop being buddy buddy with Netanyahu and insist on a cease fire. He would have to terminate any financial or military support to Israel until the war in Gaza has been ended and a two state solution has been preliminarily been worked out. He would have to take decisive steps to bring those two things about. I know that is what Biden would like to see happen, but he would have to put his foot down with Netanyahu to achieve those goals. Biden has done a whole lot domestically to make the United States a better place. He will go down in history for accomplishing more domestically than any President since Lyndon Johnson. His legacy is secure in that regard, but he needs to wrap up at least one of the two wars or his legacy will be tarnished in terms of foreign policy.

Off the Top of My Head

Character Assassination: That's What Donald Trump Does Best

by John Lawrence

It's not about what either candidate will put their energy into in order to make the lives of Americans better. It's all about destroying the character of the other party. Has Trump said one thing about what he will try to do to make the lives of average Americans better? Of course not. It's all about him, and he's all about ridiculing and attacking Kamala and Tim Walz. Trump is about stoking hate and fear. Oh, you better be afraid of Kamala and Tim because they are so radical. They're so left wing. They're socialists. So what do those labels actually mean? Nothing. According to Republicans, if you actually want to help people, you're a socialist.So according to them, the best thing for the country is NOT to try and help people. If anything you should give more trillions of dollars to the military and slash taxes for the rich, because, as we all know, it's only the rich that can make the US a better place. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world does not only try to make the lives of their people better, they actually care about doing something about climate change which will probably destroy the lives of the next generation if more isn't done about it.

So American democracy is about the candidates propitiating the wants of the least common denominators? Or about electing someone who has successfully assassinated their competitor's character? That's what democracy is all about? And God forbid that a candidate even mentions climate change or that Americans should have to give up their gas guzzling cars, their hamburgers or even their plastic straws. Meanwhile, climate change is already destroying the lives of millions of people and inconveniencing millions more. But "leaders" are still attributing weather disasters to "thousand year" floods. However, thousand year floods are occurring on a yearly basis. Democracy really doesn't work if you have to pander to the least common denominators and they are a bunch of ignoramuses whose only interests are self interest. But that's how Americans have been taught to be - self interested.

Meanwhile, one might think that American elections are all about raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

By law, major presidential candidates in France may not spend more than 22.5 million Euros (about $25 million) on their campaigns. We in the United States have no such limits.

Joe Biden spent $1.6 billion to win the 2020 presidential election. That is 70 times more than Macron spent on his bid, yet the U.S. population is just five times larger than France’s. There is no end in sight to the amount of money in American politics. Biden spent three times more than Hilary Clinton did in 2016. One could argue that the high stakes in the 2020 election justified big spending, but that argument applies equally to France in 2022 when there is a war raging on two NATO borders to its east. The only reason France spends orders of magnitude less than the United States in its elections is because the French have limits.

Not only that, but there are time limits for campaigning in major European countries. In France, the official election campaign usually lasts no more than 2 weeks. In countries which have parliamentary democracies, there is no voting for President. You only vote for members of parliament. This in itself would tend to decrease the division of the electorate into two opposing groups as has happened in the US where the country is divided into two warring camps. In the US all races not only for President but for members of Congress are winner take all. This also tends to divide the electorate into two warring camps. To further exacerbate American elections, we have the antiquated system of the electoral college so that the election for President hinges on the results in just a few battleground states. The Presidential election is not determined by the popular vote resulting in the fact that the US is a democracy only in the minimalist of terms.

Off the Top of My Head

Starter Homes Cost More Than $1 Million in 237 American Cities

by John Lawrence

In many US cities a starter home costs more than $1 million making it unaffordable for most young people who make less than $400,000. CBS News reports:

If you put 20% down on your $1 million home, you would need an $800,000 mortgage for the remainder of what you owe on the purchase. In this case, your mortgage payment would be $7,739 per month, inclusive of estimated property taxes and homeowners insurance costs. That amounts to about $92,868 per year in mortgage payments. 

With 0% down, you can expect to pay $9,070 per month inclusive of estimated property taxes and homeowners insurance costs. With less than 20% down, you should also expect to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI), which would cost about $1,250 per month. That works out to a total of $10,320 per month, or $123,840 in annual mortgage payments. 

Based on these figures, you would need to earn $331,671.43 annually to afford a $1 million home with a 20% down payment if you follow the 28% rule. Or, you would need to earn about $442,285.71 annually to afford the same home with no down payment based on this rule. 

Obviously, only very rich families with parental support can afford to buy a starter home in 237 American cities. So what is the solution? If you're young, move to an American city where the average price of a starter home is around $200,000. Cities like South Bend, Indiana, Cleveland, Ohio, or Topeka, Kansas. Indianapolis, Indiana has cheap starter homes. The median price for a housing unit in Indianapolis is $232,000. However, think twice about cities that are desirable or undesirable due to climate change. I wouldn't buy a house in a city in the south, for instance. Also there are several other factors like what's the job situation. As time goes on, some areas of the country will become virtually uninhabitable due to climate change. In general you have to consider the topography. Are you close to a river or creek that could flood? Are you close to a forest that could burn? Does the area have adequate water resources? What about infrastructure? I wouldn't want to be too close to the ocean as climate change raises ocean levels and shore lines are washed away.

Young people should be given a path to home ownership like returning GIs from World War II. They could buy a house with nothing down. Their mortgages were guaranteed by the government. In exchange for a two year commitment to the American Climate Corps, young people should also be able to buy a house with nothing down. Home ownership is the time proven way to build middle class wealth. Renters will never build wealth. The government should be in the business of creating a strong middle class. This can only be accomplished by encouraging wide spread home ownership, and this has to start with young people getting into homes.

Off the Top of My Head

Mud Slinging and Character Assassination: the Only Things Republicans Know How To Do

by John Lawrence

And then the pundits discuss the mud slinging by the hour. Calling people names. Making up stuff. What's this got to do with the future vision for the country? What I want to hear from Trump and Kamala is their vision for the future of our country. I could care less about what they seem to be all about - destroying their opponent. These are the ethics of a wrestling match - destroy your opponent. Kamala has to get specific about a few policies, namely, the border, taxation and abortion. She needs to co-opt Trump's issues. She needs to call for a tax cut for the middle class while raising taxes on the rich. On the border, she has to call for strengthening the border to the point that it is impregnable while calling for increased legal pathways for immigration and asylum. On the wars she has to demand a cease fire and hostage release in Gaza and a settlement in Ukraine that's basically a compromise instead of an all or nothing approach.

The overriding issue of our times is climate change. Nothing could be clearer than the differences between the two parties on this issue. The Democrats are very environmentally conscious. Republicans couldn't care less about the environment or climate change. All they care about is their plastic straws, gas guzzling vehicles, guns and meat. Don't ask them to change their way of life in order to save the planet for future generations. It's hard to imagine a worse ethical stance. They are against everything that is conducive to making the world a better place. It's the legacy of an ethic of selfishness as promulgated by Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and others including Ayn Rand who wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. The US has a very weak, to the point of nonexistence, communal ethic. Individualism and competition is the fabric of American character. There have been a few exceptions, namely, the Depression and World War II. Even in those cases there were many voices who called for not getting involved and just letting the chips fall where they may.

So Kamala, don't get caught up in the mudslinging, character assassination and name calling or responding to same. Express clearly where you are on the issues and where your policies will take America and the world. Vagueness is the enemy of clarity and decisiveness. Better to ignore Trump and his puerility. I want to see clarity about the border and clarity about taxation. As far as women's reproductive rights, Democrats own that issue. As for the rest, a continuation of Biden's policies in terms of infrastructure, the child tax credit, elder long term care and other aspects of Biden's Build Back Better program are important. Especially, the surge in mental awareness and acceptance of mutual responsibility for climate change and the environment is paramount regardless of Republican insistence on keeping their plastic straws, guns, meat and gas guzzlers. A change in the mentality of Americans has to occur or climate disasters will only get worse until many areas of the US, not to mention the world, will become uninhabitable in the very near future.

Off the Top of My Head

Young People Need a Path to Home Ownership and Hence Wealth Creation

by John Lawrence

Kamala Harris needs to give young people hope that they too can be home owners. This has traditionally been the path to wealth creation for the middle class. When the GIs came back from World War II, they were able to get mortgages with no down payments although black GIs were not able to take advantage of this program due to redlining. This is the key to home ownership for young people today. There has to be a way to get a mortgage with no down payment. What is happening is that economic and  financial forces are driving the cost of home ownership out of sight. Corporations are buying up single family homes and turning them into rentals. With nothing to stop this trend America will become a nation of renters. Renters create wealth for their landlords not for themselves. Right now there is no path to home ownership for young people except if their parents help with the down payment.

The US is becoming a nation of modern day peasants who own no property just as medieval peasants did not. They created wealth for the nobility who were their landlords. Today as home ownership recedes from reality for young people, they are looking forward to living paycheck to paycheck with annual rent increases. Even with target inflation of 2%, rents will continue to rise at least by that amount as young people are saddled not only with student loan debt but car payment debt and credit card debt. They will never get ahead as the corporatization of home ownership results in wealth accumulation for corporations and the rich. Kamala needs to address this problem so that young people have a pathway to home ownership the way returning GIs from World War II did.

President Biden has already set up the American Climate Corps. This is the existential issue of our times. Young people who sign up for a two year stint in the American Climate Corps should get a no down payment pathway to American home ownership. I would like to see Kamala implement this in lieu of making this a perk of joining the military. There are already all sorts of perks for joining the military while hardly any for nonmilitary national service. There should be pathways for young people to succeed without joining the military. Right now you can get a free college education by joining the military. This perpetuates militaristic incentives to get ahead in this country. There are no such pathways for those who want to serve their country without joining the military. There should be. There should be a pathway to wealth creation and incentives for serving America by addressing the most important and impending issue of our time - climate change and environmental justice. We need important programs to put people to work in the environmental area and in return they should get a pathway to home ownership and wealth creation. Otherwise the US will become a neo medieval society with the majority of people enhancing the wealth of the already wealthy and living paycheck to paycheck with most of that paycheck going to paying rent and interest on debt.

Off the Top of My Head

Tax Cuts for the Middlle Class; Tax Hikes on the Rich

by John Lawrence

The two issues Republicans have are tax cuts and border security. Don't cede these issues to Republicans. A majority of Americans want a secure border. This has nothing to do with LEGAL immigration or even with amnesty. Limiting amnesty to those applying for it legally does not require any changes in the law. What it does require is reinforcing the border so no one can get over it illegally. This would then require more resources devoted to reinforcing the border.   In terms of tax cuts, Democrats have to stress tax cuts for the middle class paid for by tax hikes on the rich. Kamala should go right after these issues. She needs to be extremely tough on both of them. Let's face it: Democrats are going to vote for her no matter what. However, at this point in time, most voters are independents. She needs to co-opt Trumplican issues. And don't be too worried about a plan. Does Trump have a plan? No, he just asserts, "I will do this. I will do that." Kamala should take a page out of Trump's book. Just say, "I will do this. I will do that." She doesn't need to spell out HOW she's going to do it in detail. For sure, Trump doesn't.

Now that Joe Biden has dropped out of the race, he doesn't have to do two jobs - being President and campaigning - while Trump just has one - campaigning. That's why Mike Johnson wants Biden to resign: so that Kamala will be saddled with the responsibilities of President instead of devoting full time to campaigning. Democrats know what the Democratic agenda is in terms of providing for and addressing the needs of the middle class and the poor. But she has to address the sweet spot - where the majority of voters are and what the majority of voters are concerned about. Of course the abortion issue resonates well for Democrats and all Americans.

This whole thing about a short campaign season for Kamala is ridiculous. Most countries don't let political campaigns last more than a couple of months by law. In France political campaigns just last a couple of weeks. In Canada the longest political campaign was 74 days. In Australia, the longest political campaign lasted 11 weeks. In Japan campaigning is allowed for 12 days. In countries where campaigns are limited by law, elections aren't controlled by big money interests as they are in the US. The longer the campaign season, the more big money controls elections and politics. In the US, if we don't want the very rich to control elections, not only the campaign period, but also the amount of money spent on political campaigns needs to be controlled.

The US is becoming a neo-medieval society in which the majority have no hope of home ownership, but are destined to work paycheck to paycheck and be renters for life. This means no asset accumulation while their rents increase even with low inflation or target inflation of 2%. 2% target inflation means at least 2% rent increases over the course of a renter's life. In addition to not having any asset accumulation those living paycheck to paycheck are vulnerable to credit card and car payment debt so that they are supporting the banking system with interest payments for their entire life.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Are Democrats Not Hammering on the Trump Tax Cuts Which Need to be Increased for Middle Class and Eliminated for the Rich

by John Lawrence

American voters love tax cuts. That's the main appeal of a Republican administration. Biden has said he won't raise taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. This is not a strong enough statement. He, or whoever eventually is the Democratic nominee, should say that they will lower taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. Most of the Trump tax cuts go to those making over $400,000. CNN reported: "The highest-income households would receive more than 45% of the benefits if the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are extended, according to an analysis released Monday by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center." Why can't the Democrats see this? The Republicans' only appeal to the middle class are the tax cuts which give them a paltry $1000 or 1.3% of their income off their taxes while the rich households making at least around $450,000 – roughly the top 5% - would see their after-tax income increase by 3.2%. Democrats need to take this issue away from Republicans. Right now their rhetoric around this issue is too weak.

For those in the top 1%, who make at least $1 million, they get a tax cut of about $70,000, on average, in 2027. The top 0.1%, who make at least $5 million, would pocket a tax cut of nearly $280,000, on average, or about 3% of their after-tax income. Also extending the Trump tax cuts would have a big impact on the national debt, raising it by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years – before interest costs are factored in, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of course this will give power to Republican claims that the government can't support social security and Medicare any more. There will not be any more money available after supporting a one trillion dollar military budget and paying interest on the national debt.

What is wrong with the Democrats? There is already too much disparity between the very rich and the middle class. We are going back to a medieval society where the rich aristocracy run the political establishment and the middle class are nothing but modern day peasants. The peasants will not be able to build wealth because they won't be able to buy a house which is the main wealth builder for the middle class. They all will be renters for life living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality for life in America today. People who have even one asset, a house, will get ahead by building wealth. People who are life long renters will only create wealth for their landlords. This is the way it was 500 years ago. Well, at least today, everyone has a cell phone.

Off the Top of My Head

War is Institutionalized; Peace is Not

by John Lawrence

If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like it can be solved by pounding a nail. If all you have is a military-industrial complex, every problem looks as if it can be solved by the threat or application of military power. This has been true for thousands of years, most of which time war was just accepted as a given. Now more elaborate justifications seem to be necessary, but the results are the same. Resources are devoted to war while a pittance is devoted to peace. The US currently spends about a trillion dollars annually on its military-industrial complex while the Peace Corps is allocated next to nothing. Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million.  Diplomacy and even common sense take a back seat to war. Take Ukraine, for example. The longer the war goes on, the predictable result is only more destruction of real estate and more lives ruined both physically and emotionally.

President Biden wants to continue the war until there is a "winner", and he is sure that with the provision of US military assets, that winner will be Ukraine. More level headed experts think that the war will only be settled with a partition of Ukraine. To settle the Russo-Ukraine war diplomatically, a number of analysts have suggested that the apparent military stalemate be accepted in a ceasefire agreement in which Ukraine would be partitioned along the current battle lines. If we look at the history of eastern Europe, we see that partitions are not a novelty. The Partitions of Poland were three partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that took place toward the end of the 18th century and ended the existence of the state, resulting in the elimination of sovereign Poland and Lithuania for 123 years. The partitions were conducted by the Habsburg monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire, which divided up the Commonwealth lands among themselves progressively in the process of territorial seizures and annexations. Hmmm. Partitions are nothing new and the redrawing of national boundaries is nothing new? So in 2024 the powers that be insist that there will be no redrawing of national boundaries even if it means that a war of attrition will go on indefinitely. I think President Biden has been a great President when it comes to domestic policy, but less so when it comes to perpetuating the wars both in Ukraine and Israel. Without going into detail about Israel, he has not been forceful enough in restraining Israel from destroying Gaza.

America does not need to defund the Department of Defense (War). It just needs to refund a Department of Peace. The United States accounts for nearly 40% of global military spending, and devotes a larger share of its GDP to defense than most other countries. U.S. military spending was greater than the next ten biggest spenders in 2023. Fruitless wars will only continue if revenge is the operative factor. Peace building needs to continue in other parts of the world in spite of wars currently being waged. However, there is always money to fight wars, hardly ever is there money to wage peace. The military and/or the national guard could be used in a more productive way to provide security in those areas where peace builders need protection and even along the border. This would be a productive use of the military. Instead, most military personnel sit idle in 800 military bases around the world only to be deployed in hot wars. Why not use them to provide security in areas where militias are running amok? So I feel that, while military resources are not intelligently utilized, peace building resources hardly exist. The two could be complementary if used wisely.

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Are Not Married to Joe Biden

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden engaged in an unremitting debacle last night. Debates are about more than just words and points. Joe Biden looked like death warmed over - a gray pallor. Donald Trump had color in his face and walked and talked like a normal human being. Joe Biden shuffles. That's for starters. Then Biden spoke in a monotone, rushing his words and then stumbled over them and then lost his trains of thought. Debates are about more than scoring verbal points. They are about eloquence and articulation. Joe Biden had nothing to offer in these areas. Then there were the repeated Biden cliches - "and by the way" which he repeated ad nauseum. His defensiveness - "The idea ...". And there were more. Biden's delivery was so poor and expressionless that Trump's demeanor triumphed by comparison. Trump had no problem finding his words albeit his words were filled with lies. Trump sounded normal and looked normal. He was animated whereas Biden looked stiff and frozen - death warmed over. Sorry to say it because I was a big Biden fan and think his accomplishments are in the class of the few greatest Presidents.

What's important now is to get someone else in there. Almost any youthful, normal Democrat could beat Donald Trump. Also any normal Democrat would continue Biden's policies. We don't need Joe Biden in order to continue Joe Biden's policies. The stakes are so big for this election in terms of the policies of any generic Democrat versus the policies of Donald Trump which would be disastrous for the nation and for the world. Just the fact that Trump would disable any climate change policies is enough to vote against him. The world is simultaneously burning up and being drowned in floods. Trump would guarantee that climate change would not only continue unabated, but would be accelerated.

My pick would be Gavin Newsom, a very impressive, well spoken and knowledgeable Democrat. Newsom could easily beat Trump in my opinion and would continue for the most part Biden's and Democrat's policies.This election should not be about Biden's ego. It's about the fate of America and the world. Biden's domestic policies have been excellent, but I have reservations about his foreign policy. The two wars in Ukraine and Israel have hurt him, and I don't agree with how Biden has handled them. He has too much of a Cold War mentality. Biden is at least somewhat responsible for setting up a new Cold War axis with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on the other side. I think that some other President could possibly ameliorate this situation. We don't need another Cold War at this point in history.

The President of the United States is too important a position for a joker like Trump to be in it. I believe any normal Democrat could beat Trump. It's all about Trump's policies versus generic Democratic policies and which are better for America and the world. We don't need Joe Biden to continue Joe Biden's policies. He should step aside for the good of the country.

Off the Top of My Head

Peace is Not Just the Absence of War

by John Lawrence

As an advocate for a Department of Peace, I do not advocate eliminating the Department of War (Defense Department) altogether. I think both are necessary but in a more balanced way. Most efforts toward peace in the world should take place outside the arena of war, that is as a preventative to war. This includes economic development in parts of the world that are liable to gang control. In fact I would advocate the use of the US military to go after the gangs that are controlling certain parts of the world, for example in Mexico where gangs are trafficking humans to the US border and controlling the inflow of drugs into the US. Haiti is another candidate for the use of the US military to eliminate the gangs while the Peace Corps is helping with economic development. In areas of the world that don't have mature institutions that can provide security for the populace, the US military could provide that while the Peace Corps is building infrastructure. The two should operate hand in hand. What China is doing with its Belt and Road Initiative is instructive. China is winning friends and influencing people by building infrastructure in many parts of the world. But much more needs to be done that China is not doing. Low level infrastructure such as clean water and sanitation needs to be built out. Approximately half the world does not have clean water or adequate sanitation facilities.  3.6 billion people are still living with poor-quality toilets that damage their health and pollute their environment. Inadequate sanitation systems spread human waste into rivers, lakes and soil, contaminating water resources.China is building high level infrastructure such as ports, railroads and trains. The US should complement their efforts.

There are around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries. Most of these bases are unnecessary and represent a waste of money. They are also sitting ducks for attacks by the likes of ISIS. They should be eliminated and the resources redirected elsewhere. With US sea borne and satellite military resources there is no need for land based resources. The efforts should instead be put into developing  infrastructure both in terms of economics and in terms of political institutions. What is important is helping to create stable institutions in parts of the world where instability results in chaos ^e.g. Haiti. Also if life was good in countries where there is a lack of stability and economic development, people would not be flocking to the US and European borders and asking for asylum. So military assets as well as Peace Corps assets could work hand in hand. Once war breaks out these efforts at creating peace in the first place are useless. A Department of Peace needs to have a diplomatic aspect as well as the Peace Corps division. Also person to person exchanges help to build understanding. In fact the largest efforts need to be made with those who are considered our worst enemies.

As an anti-war protester in the 1960s, I am still one today. Peace efforts or efforts at creating peace in the world today do have both an economic and a military component. In some countries peace workers would be slaughtered by gangs if they weren't adequately protected by the US military while they go about doing their jobs. So while I am anti war, I am not anti military. I just think that the balance of human and financial resources is completely out of whack. Less money and manpower (womanpower?) needs to be devoted to the military and more money and womanpower needs to be devoted to the Department of Peace which should include the Peace Corps (economic development), the diplomatic corps (institutional development)  and exchange corps ( person to person friendship). Less effort needs to be spent on proving to the rest of the world that the US way is the best way and more effort needs to be spent on creating stable societies with the economic and institutional resources so that people in all parts of the world can have comfortable and secure lives.

Bringing the rest of the world up to economic and institutional speed is of utmost importance today because, unless the whole world is operating cooperatively, it will be impossible to do much about our common enemy - global warming. In fact we have met the enemy and it is us. Economic development in the developed world has proceeded in such a way as to have created the global warming crisis. Now it must proceed in such a way as to eliminate it. Sustainable development and environmental responsibility should be the order of the day. Countries that have vast fossil fuel resources have no incentive to curtail the economic development of those resources if they are considered to be pariah nations by the rest of the world. Nations that are considered pariah nations have no incentive to convert from war time expenditures to peace time expenditures if they are not brought into the community of nations in a respectful way. Nations that are at war right now have no incentive to negotiate a peaceful resolution if their interests and concerns are not taken into account.

Off the Top of My Head

Inflation Hurts Some But It Helps Others

by John Lawrence

If you own a home or have money in the stock market, inflation helps you since your underlying asset is increasing in value. If you are a renter with no money in the stock market, inflation hurts you. It's that simple. Consider this: even with the Fed's target rate of 2 per cent inflation, your house, which is an asset, is increasing in value year after year. If you are a renter, not only don't you have an asset which is increasing, your rent will continue to go up since the owner of the apartment has his expenses increasing and because his asset, the apartment building, keeps increasing in value. So owners benefit from inflation, even target inflation (2 per cent) and renters keep going into debt. The fact that owners still have to pay more for eggs is meaningless because a house represents a much larger investment than a dozen eggs. When an asset of high value keeps increasing, this gives one much more money to spend on small items which are increasing at the same rate, The net result is that owners are much better off. Non-owners are much worse off.

Housing is increasing in value so much that people, especially young people, are being priced out of the housing market. They will never be asset owners and will be paying rent for the rest of their lives. Many of them have student loan debt when they start out in life. So Gen Z will likely be a generation of debtors. More and more low earning Americans are falling out of the rental market and becoming homeless. Seniors comprise a large percentage of the homeless. Billions have been spent on the homeless situation yet more fall into homelessness every month. There is seemingly no solution. The only solution, it seems to me, is public housing. The idea that providing shelters for homeless people until they can get into normal market rate housing is a chimera. Many of them are unemployable, and those who are employable will probably not make enough money to pay market rate rent.

Public housing is one thing that government is very reluctant to provide. Where will the money come from for that when more money has to be spent mitigating the results of climate change? There is a billion dollar disaster a month, seemingly, whether that comes from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes or a myriad of other weather disasters. The US is not a welfare state. It is the most free market economy of the western civilizations. That means that for the most part the homeless will be treated, in Nixon's term, with benign neglect. It's social Darwinism or survival of the fittest. A large number of Americans subscribe to that philosophy. It was a really big deal in the 1920s. Even forced sterilization was implemented for a period of time. So the US will continue on its way without solving the homeless problem. As rents continue to climb, more people will fall into homelessness and the modest efforts to combat it will probably not be sufficient. Only if the US reallocates its resources toward more of a welfare state will we make progress on this situation.

Off the Top of My Head

Peace is Not Just the Absense of War

by John Lawrence

War is inevitable as long as the various parties do everything to build up their war machines and do nothing to undertake peace initiatives even when the parties are not actually at war. Many think that if there is no war nothing must be done to prevent the next war except perhaps building up their war machine. When there is no active war, that's the best time for preventing the next likely war. There was no reason for World War I other than the fact that the nations involved had built up their war machines in "peace time" and were spoiling for war. Nietzsche said, "A good war hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of the neighbor." Really? Then perpetual war followed perhaps by short intervals of the absense of war also known as "peace" is the fate of the human race until the human race is extinguished in one great cataclysm. But there is more to peace than just the absense of war. Peace must be built one step at a time just like any edifice. Every nation should have a Department of Peace to counterbalance the ubiquitous Departments of War. If peace is systematically built, war may be preventable. If it is not, the Department of War will always stay ready to conduct war if all else fails. To advocate for peace is not the same as to advocate for disarmament. Realistically, a peaceful neighbor can always be attacked by a stronger unscrupulous neighbor. In fact that is what always has occurred throughout history. This led to the "balance of power" situation in Europe before World War I. It was believed that this was the only way to prevent war, that is, if each neighboring nation was equally matched in their military capabilities. So putting resources into a Department of Peace does not mean not putting resources into a Department of War. In fact they both should be concurrently developed just in case. One is a deterrent. The other is a preventative.

I would advocate a different approach to the peace process than has been pursued so far.. Each nation should put as much human and financial capital into a Department of Peace as they do into a Department of War. So what would a Department of Peace actually do? First of all, eliminate poverty in the world. When everyone has at least a minimally adequate living standard, it is less likely that they will organize for war. Secondly, the existential fact of climate change will create war if it is not solved. In fact it is an existential threat to all life on earth that will make World War III seem trivial in comparison. The ones that will suffer the most are the poor nations and the poor in the rich nations. A Department of Peace needs to be spending a lot both in human and financial capital on this problem. Third, a Department of Peace needs to build infrastructure both to adapt to global warming and to bring poorer nations up to speed. A good place to start is to have the goal of clean water and an adequate sewage system for all of the world's inhabitants. China has taken the lead on this with its Belt and Road initiative building infrastructure throughout the world. Fourth, all nations and all leaders of nations should be shown respect. When one nation's leaders describe another nation's leaders as evil or talk about their countries as "evil empires," this alienates them. Calling a nation's leader a pariah actually turns them into one. Alienation follows disrespect. Friendship entails respect and consideration for all nations even ones with different political and economic institutions. Diplomacy should be increased a thousand fold or more. Person to person exchange groups should be encouraged.

Inequality leads to war. Everyone on planet earth deserves to have an adequate amount of material possessions including good health care, education, food and housing. Those who have inadequate possessions or services or at least a minimal amount of those material things and services compared to others will always want to take from those who have all those things. Rich nations need to help poor nations get richer or else face the consequence of always having to defend what they've got from those who have little or nothing. Many wars have been fought over territory and material possessions. Also many wars have been fought over religion. Education needs to pave the way for people to understand that a person's belief system is up to that person and need not be a threat to another's belief system. The religious wars in Europe between Catholicism and Protestantism went on for hundreds of years proved nothing. The same could be said for the wars between Islam and Christianity or between Hindus and Muslims. The secularization of the world's societies is necessary at least to the point that someone's religion is nobody else's business. The separation of church and state was one of the hallmarks of the US Constitution that has been very successful.

To sum up planet earth will never attain world peace unless that becomes a goal in such a way that peace is not just defined as the absense of war. Like the development of all good things peace must be worked at and for. An effort must be put into it. Resources must be devoted to it. Else the outcome will be the same as the outcome of any venture for which nothing much was done about it. The natural outcome for a world not working every day for peace and not devoting adequate resources towards it will be war. The Law of Entropy will prevail. Everything will disintegrate unless energy is put into the system.

Off the Top of My Head

A Superpower in Decline

by John Lawrence

1) Rights taken away from women. The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to outlaw nearly all abortions in Arizona will likely lead to an influx of patients fleeing the state to find care in California, abortion rights activists said.

2) The world's policeman can't police its own borders. The asylum law lets anyone setting foot on American soil ask for asylum. Court dates for asylum cases are, on average, more than four years out in the future, and even longer for final decisions. Over 3 million cases were pending before immigration courts near the end of 2023, with the backlog growing by 1 million since 2022.

3) The archaic electoral college has never been replaced by a direct popular vote for President. The result is that the winner of the popular vote has not been elected President. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush was elected President. The Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, but Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately voted 5 to 4 to reverse the Florida court’s decision and halt the recount. With Florida in hand, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, while Gore ended up getting 500,000 more votes in the popular vote. As a result Gore's push for limits on global warming was lost as Bush promoted fossil fuels. Also Bush lied the US into a disastrous war in Iraq that resulted in Iraq becoming an ally of Iran.

4) 750 military bases in 80 countries are sitting ducks for an attack by Iran or its proxies. The largest U.S. base in the Middle East is located in Qatar, known as Al Udeid Air Base and built in 1996. Other countries where the U.S. has a presence include Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Three American service members were killed and dozens more were injured in an unmanned aerial drone attack on a base known as Tower 22 in Jordan on January 28, 2024. Now that the US is expecting an attack by Iran, which sitting duck will be next?

5) An insurrectionist with several dozen indictments is allowed to run for President. Last year, Donald Trump became the first former president of the United States to be criminally indicted. Over the span of five months, he was indicted in four separate criminal cases and charged on a total of 91 felony counts.

6) Futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden eventually killed in Obama administration by small Seal team, proving futility of invading Afghanistan

7) Wealth inequality. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. There are now more billionaires than ever: 2,781 in all, 141 more than last year and 26 more than the record set in 2021. They’re richer than ever, worth $14.2 trillion in aggregate, up by $2 trillion from 2023 and $1.1 trillion above the previous record, also set in 2021. 

8) Housing unaffordability. San Diego families need an income of nearly $275,000 a year to afford a mortgage on a home, which is nearly double what it was before the pandemic, according to a new report from the real estate website Zillow.

9) Homelessness is an intractable problem. On any given night in the United States, more than half a million people experience homelessness.

10) The filibuster rule and the bicameral legislature. Nothing much can get done unless one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. President Biden looks stupid since he can't even keep his commitments to NATO because the Republican controlled House won't vote the funds Biden has promised. This means Ukraine will lose the war with Russia, and other countries cannot trust the US to keep its commitments.

11) The Second Amendment. No other country allows the uncontrolled proliferation of guns. More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included record numbers of both gun murders and gun suicides.

Off the Top of My Head

What Biden Has To Do To Win

by John Lawrence

The two biggest issues are the economy and the border. Biden has to address these two issues effectively if he hopes to win the election. The way to neutralize Trump's appeal on these issues is essentially to co-opt Trump's positions. On the economy, Biden must come out for tax breaks for the middles class. He has already been talking about taxing the rich. Good, but this does nothing for tax relief for the middle class unless he explicitly comes out and say so. Americans are at least subconsciously accustomed to the fact that, f they elect a Republican President, they will get a tax cut. Problem is Republican tax cuts go mainly to the rich as they did during Trump's administration when he added $7 trillion to the national debt with his tax cuts. The fact that Biden wants to tax the rich should enable him to responsibly give tax cuts to the middle class without adding to the debt. He needs to simplify his messaging to the bare essentials as Trump does without getting down into the policy weeds.

Secondly, on the border, Biden's position is not strong enough. This vaunted "bi-partisan legislation" that Trump doesn't want passed is not strong enough. The correct position is that the goal should be not one illegal entry over the US border. This is the position of most countries after all. The US is spending too much money on 750 military bases in 80 countries being the world's policeman yet it can't control its own border! This is the height of ridiculousness. I hasten to point out that with effective border control the laws regarding amnesty would not have to be changed. Immigrants could still apply for amnesty albeit through legal channels. The ridiculous situation that anyone who sets foot on American soil illegally can apply for amnesty will have been effectively curtailed. This presupposes that enormous resources in terms of infrastructure and manpower will have to be redirected to the border. Well, how about closing some of those foreign military bases and using that money to beef up the border? The goal should be not one illegal entry, rather than hiring more judges. The bill entails: "The bipartisan Senate bill would add more than 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel. Asylum Officers and Asylum Reform: Similarly, Asylum Officer staffing has remained stagnant over the last four years and there is an insufficient number of asylum officers to do initial screenings." This bill presupposes that immigrants will continue to enter the US illegally. It's the wrong approach, it's too complicated, the American people will not understand it. Trump will make that clear. Trump will state his case simply and directly in a way that a 12 year old can understand which is about the mentality of a lot of the American people. Biden has to out Trump Trump on this issue, but do it in a responsible way. If the goal is "not one illegal entry," then that can be coupled with increasing LEGAL immigration.

Thirdly, Biden has to end the two wars: Ukraine and Gaza. He is letting Netanyahu run all over him making him look weak. He has to demand an end to that war and impose a two state solution if necessary. He dos not need to state a lot of ifs, buts, whereases and wherefores. Simply state his position and what he intends to accomplish with all the might of US prestige and power. Trump will state his positions as if they will be fait accomplis no matter how impractical or unlikely they actually are in reality. Biden has to get a lot tougher and use the withdrawal of US resources from Israel if necessary. He is treating Israel with kid gloves. He has to be more evenhanded in his support for Gaza and Palestine. In Ukraine, the handwriting is on the wall. Biden's cold war mentality set up this proxy war between the US and Russia. He has to demand a cease fire with the lines being drawn between the areas that Russia and Ukraine now control. To be specific Russia would control Crimea, which they've controlled since 2014 without a peep from the Obama administration, and the Donbas region while Ukraine controls the rest. A plebiscite could later determine the eventual fate of the boundaries between the two countries. If Biden doesn't do something about a cease fire in each of these  two wars, it could doom his Presidency for a second term. Americans are tired of these meaningless wars and the inability of the all powerful US, the world's policeman, to do anything about them.

In short Biden has to get tough. He needs to simplify his positions. It's not enough to criticize Trump as being too extreme. Obviously, the American people aren't buying it. He needs to finesse the main issues - economy, border and 2 wars - by saying that he will 1) give tax breaks to the middle class, 2) prevent even one illegal entry to the US and 3) end the 2 wars. If he does all three things, he will co-opt Trump on these issues and win the election. If he continues to advocate for the Senate border bill, let Netanyahu make a patsy out of him and call for taxing the rich without a concomitant tax break for the middle class, he will lose.

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Policeman Cannot Even Police Its Own Borders

by John Lawrence

The U.S. has about 750 military bases across 80 countries in the world and had deployed 173,000 troops in 159 different countries as of July 2021. Yet it can't patrol or defend its own borders. This is the height of ridiculousness. While Congress persons debate some Rube Goldberg solution to border security, the Biden administration should do this if it wants to neutralize Trump's stand on border security: the Democrat policy should be "not one illegal border crossing should be tolerated. We stand for increasing legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration to ZERO." The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and yet is willing to tolerate people entering the country illegally. What a joke! If Biden wants to defeat Trump, he should take this issue away from him by declaring that his goal is: NOT ONE ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.

This means that, instead of spending money on 750 military bases in 80 countries all over the world, the US needs to spend money instead on policing its own border including, but not limited to, physical barriers. In addition there must be electronic barriers, satellite surveillance, and other sophisticated means of surveillance. Why not use AI, the supposed cure all for everything that ails us. Why not put 10 or 100 of those military bases circling the world right on the US border? To be clear I am not advocating withdrawing from being involved in world affairs, but that involvement which is manifested in being the world's policeman has got to change. It has been of very little value if you add it all up. The US can effectively patrol the whole world anyway from the sky, from space and from the sea. It doesn't need land based military bases. The US should be involved in the world by expanding its Peace Corp, building infrastructure like China is with its Belt and Road Initiative and mitigating climate change in vulnerable countries. In other words the US should be a force for good in the world not just a force for preserving US interests or the status quo.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed on January 28, 2024 in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Then of course the US has to retaliate to avenge the deaths of those soldiers. Soldiers on many of these bases are sitting ducks and are provocative to those seeking to damage US interests.Yet the role of the US as the world's policeman is not even debated by politicians and probably won't be as the election season heats up. Instead the border debate is a big deal as it should be. Biden needs to assert that his goal is that not one person should enter the US illegally, but that legal immigration should be expanded. He should outTrump Trump on border security if he wants to be elected, and, while he is at it, he should demand that at least 25% of the bloated military budget which amounts to about a trillion dollars a year be redirected to border security. There is no reason why the US should not have the most sophisticated border security system in the world.