The Plot to Kill Public Employee Pensions

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In war and politics, if you pick your battlefield you win. The current pension fight in New Jersey is a classic example. Nearly everyone in the state sees it as a battle between a broken pension system and cash strapped citizens, but this is all just a setup.

Governor Chris Christie cut $1.5 billion in pension payments from the latest budget proposal while also cutting modest tax increases on the rich to pay for it.  When the unions squealed, he offered the public a false choice between tax hikes on the middle class or cuts to popular and essential programs.  His framing of the problem this way pits average citizens against civil servants and their unions.  This is the battlefield of choice for national conservatives.

This fight could have been between government solvency and any other public obligation of the state, but it's not.  It's against public employee unions because killing public sector unions and fix pension systems has been a conservative priority for decades.  This is a grand plan playing out in many other states.  Starving public pensions was always a choice, not a necessity.  If all those missed pension payments had been made the system would be awash in cash today given the huge growth in the investment markets over the past twenty years. 

But Gov. Christie almost blew this plan to destroy public employee pensions in New Jersey when he enacted pension reforms that might actually fix the system.  His reform plan could still fix it if implemented, but not without seriously upsetting his potential conservative backers.

In order to keep his presidential hopes alive Governor Christie had no choice but to sabotaged his own reforms and further degrade the state pension system by not paying what he promised.  A state judge has seen through his shallow plan and ordered him to restore the cuts, and he has appealed. I hope the New Jersey Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's decision.  

I hope everyone else in New Jersey sees though his sham and demand that that he stick to the pension reform plan he has been boasting about on his trips out of state.  And if the reader here happens to live in a conservative state with public pension woes, take a lesson from New Jersey.  Take a step back and look around to see in whose battlefield you may be standing.

See also: Civil Service Pensions - A Marker for What We've Lost

HERE IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON IS WORTH CELEBRATING

HERE IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON IS 

WORTH CELEBRATING

George Washington warned this Nation about political parties that,"alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities." He called political parties.."a frightful despotism."

He called plutocrats (wealthy, controlling capitalists) ,"powerful engines" of cunning and ambition that "subvert the power of the people and usurp, for themselves, the reins of government."

Because a democratic government is compelled to enact the will of the people he gave this advice: "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge." He said, "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

He denounced war that is coerced by "habitual hatred" and those who profit from it. He said "The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy... The government... makes the animosity of the nation [towards war] subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives."

And he made all of these comments in his Farewell Address, with the hope that we would still  be listening.

https://www.senate.gov/…/his…/resources/pdf/WashFarewell.pdf
HT: StarLedger of NJ

A Best of Times, Worst of Times Economy

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

How is it possible that the investment economy is booming while the economy of ordinary citizens is still in such a slump? Stock prices are at an all time high and big time investors are getting high rates of returns while worker wages have declined and are just starting to rise. The raises in wages so far is still not keeping up with inflation. It seems like there are two separate economies not entirely connected to each other. Right?

To understand what's happening we have to begin by acknowledging that most of the richest billionaires today have gotten much of their wealth increases at the expense of lower wages for the rest of us. This trend is more than thirty years old now in the United States. There is plenty of evidence supporting this fact for those who care to look. And this wage suppression is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. feature.

In order to increase consumer spending while wages remained flat we have had to make a series of changes, beginning with mothers entering the workforce, longer work hours followed by layaway plans, credit cards and then home equity loans to pay for spending beyond our means. These have run their course and the long hard pay down of personal debt (including college loans) means that consumer spending will be sluggish for the foreseeable future.

The impact on the economy of stagnant wages is ever slower consumption of goods and services over time. There isn't as much money to buy things. This slower rate of consumption suppresses demand. Lower demand means fewer jobs and even lower wages for the rest of us. This is the cycle were we find ourselves today.

The consumption of goods produces the profits from which owners of capital collect returns on their investments. Lower demand due to suppressed wages would normally also lower returns on capital investments but for the factors that have kept consumption afloat. Now there are no hours left in a day, fewer household members available to work and no more capacity to borrow against future earnings. The impact of low wages has come home to roost and it means fewer sales and less profit to be made.

Before the 1970's this situation would right itself as owners shared a portion of their wealth by offering productivity raises to reward their workers. Productivity wages are based on growing productivity, hourly GDP, It is separate and apart from cost of living increases. Productivity raises, along with cost of living adjustments, allowed the labor/consumers to increase their spending thus boosting demand. Increased demand would spur on manufacturing and stimulate the whole economy.

But today's billionaires have found another way to profit without sharing their wealth with wage earning consumers. They spotted the growing ownership stake that many in the middle class have accumulated and they created opportunities to take it from them.

It is hard for most of us to see in our lifetime, but this is the first time in modern history that the middle class (upper-middle mostly) has accumulated a significant share in capital ownership. Prior to the vast destruction of property caused by the world wars in the last century, wealth was extremely concentrated at the top, and it's happening again today. Middle class gains in the 20th Century directly correspond to capital losses by the wealthiest owners during the two world wars. Now many of us have retirement accounts, money market funds, stock holdings, etc. People in the upper-middle class, such as doctors, lawyers and middle-managers, have become mini-investment capitalists.

Billionaire capitalists, the "true heirs" to wealth ownership, have responded to middle-class ownership of capital by creating a massive financial investment casino filled with elaborate new investment vehicles. The object is to entice new wealth owners to play in the billionaire's casinos. Mortgage backed securities and swaps are just two small examples that nearly bankrupted the economy in 2008.

These new and incomprehensible investment products has spawned a whole new class of hucksters, like Bernie Madoff, who use these bewildering new instruments to create slick ponzi schemes. But the bulk of these new investment opportunities are just big casino games in which the house (billionaire owners) always wins. Billionaires are quickly siphoning away middle class ownership stakes through high finance games of chance. In this way they boost their own return on investments and entertain themselves without having to share their wealth by offering higher wages.

Because these billionaire owners, who make up less than .01% of the population, control the investment odds, they are sure to win back all the capital their families lost in the war years of the last century.

This explains why the stock market and investment economy seem to be booming while the worker economy on Main Street slumps. Billionaire capitalists don't have to share wealth to make wealth like they use to. There are enough small investors with an ownership stake who are willing to gamble what little they have in this new investment casino. It is enough to keep billionaire fortunes growing faster than the economy as a whole.

If you, the reader, are still with me at this point let me assure you that the geometrically rising gains by the wealthiest owners of capital are not an inevitability. There are difficult but concrete steps we can take to bring capitalism back into balance for everyone. A discussion of these solutions, however, does require a much deeper understanding of problems that I can provide here. I firmly believe it is in everyone's best interest to acquire a better understanding of the forces creating our two economies; Forces that are threatening our democratic institutions. For a fuller understanding I recommend Thomas Piketty's excellent book, Capitalism in the 21st Century. I encourage you to strike up conversations with others and share your thoughts and questions.

_______________________________

Image Credit: (and recommended site) http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/is-doing-something-about-inequality-just-a-choice-between-bash-the-rich-v-tackling-poverty-some-thoughts-for-blog-action-day/#prettyPhoto-img/0/

Brooklyn Police Murders Don't Erase Decades of Differential Justice

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Eleven cops were killed in 2013 at the hands of black minority alleged perpetrators. Sixteen cops were killed by white alleged perpetrators last year. Half of all cop murders that have take place in the last ten years happened in the Southern United States.  (See table below)

One problem with the FBI statistics is they don't distinguish between African-American vs. black Latino or other black skinned minorities. Even so, African-American's make up 13% of the population but make up 28% of all arrests nationally and 40% of all US prison inmates. In some communities a black person is more than 10 times as likely to be arrested than a white person in the same town.

There clearly is differential policing in this country, but not in every community. There clearly are areas where police departments exhibit racial bias, but not everywhere, in every case by every officer.

Since the 1970's there is a significant decline in police fatalities, yet, with less than half of all law enforcement agencies reporting, there are about 400 civilian deaths caused by police each year. These are deaths considered to be justifiable police homicides. That number could be well over 1,000 per year if national reporting was mandatory for law enforcement. (see this petition)

I am horrified at the brutal murders of officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in New York City. I am fully supportive of police and sympathize with their families. This is a sacrifice they should not have to bear.

The killer in this case appears to be mentally ill, having shot his ex-girlfriend before coming to NYC to kill some cops before killing himself. He wasn't one of the recent police protesters nor was he connected with any nefarious organizations that might considered "anti-law enforcement." (For the most part those organizations are far rightwing in their politics and Ismaaiyl Brinsley doesn't fit that profile) . The police are rightfully investigating this possibility as I write, but so far Brinsley seems to have acted alone.

The evidence so far suggests that this terrible killing was the result of mental illness and an anti-social personality disorder, not revenge. It should not be politicized in any way or used by the police or law enforcement officials as a reason to alter policing tactics towards those people who are lawfully protesting policing policies. blatantly unequal application of justice against minorities over the past 4 decades is a well documented fact. This incident should not be used by police departments across the country as a reason not to challenge them to change.

----------------------------------------------

Related Stories on this Blog

Three People Die in Police Custody Every Day

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/three-people-die-daily-in-police-actions.html

Police Action Fatalities in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/police-action-fatalities-in-america.html

New Data Exposes Racial Bias in Fatal Police Encounters Nationwide

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-data-exposes-racial-bias-in-fatal.html

Police Homicides, What We Know and Don't Know

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/09/police-homicides-what-we-know-and-dont.html

Serve and Protect or Enforce and Collect, The Changing Character of Local Police

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/06/serve-and-protect-or-enforce-and.html

Police Killings Not Uncommon, Exact Numbers Are Unknown

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/08/police-killings-not-uncommon-exact.html

Consequences of Militarized Police Departments in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/05/consequences-of-militarized-police.html

Stop-and-Frisk and Racial Profiling, What We Should Know

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/06/stop-and-frisk-and-racial-profiling.html

Is Rachel Maddow a News Anchor?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Here is what a bias news watch organization has to say. I've added my comments. What's yours? Please feel free to comment here.

MSNBC Thinks Rachel Maddow Is A News Anchor?

Over the past several years, MSNBC has run a series of “Lean Forward” ads promoting its various liberal hosts’ television shows as well as the network's numerous liberal causes. While many of them have been downright ridiculous...

NEWSBUSTERS.ORG

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/12/04/msnbc-thinks-rachel-maddow-news-anchor

I think of her more as a news commentator, or news synthesizer, who occasionally breaks important stories that are ignored by the mainstream news media. She and her producers report conventional news items, but they also search the internet for local news stories that should be of national interest, stories that are too often ignored. They do their fact checking and they develop their own news gathering contributions to these stories. They serve as both a filter and amplifier. The choice of stories they pursue does reveals a liberal bias which they take pains not to hide. But most importantly, they almost always get their facts right. They don't make stuff up to fit a biased political narrative as happens on the Fox News network
.
But if you criticize Dr. Maddow for not being a serious news anchor, than what must we say about the utterly silly and insignificant news that serious "news anchors" toss out to their fickle public every day? Doesn't this low information drivel make them illegitimate news anchors as well?

I no longer watch the "legitimate" news shows because these outlets are not providing me with the critical information I need every day to understand what's really happening in our world. Too often they report as news the bias statements of people in power. They fail to connect the dots when local stories form national patterns. This latter problem is what allowed ALEC to fly so long under the radar of the main stream press,

Corporate national news outlets have their own agenda, and it is usually about market share and advertising dollars, not reporting news that might anger key market segments. If viewer share on the Rachael Maddow Show grew significantly, so would the pressure to conform to standards that would not risk loosing those viewers.

More Evidence Organically Grown Food is Healthier

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

More and more people are looking to purchase organic foods in the belief that organically grown food is healthier. There has been growing concern about possible health impacts from the agrochemicals used in traditional crop production. These chemicals have included pesticides growth regulators and various petrochemical fertilizers. Many of these synthetic chemicals are not permitted in organically grown food. This often requires organic farmers to adopt different methods of crop production including mechanical weeding and different schedules of crop rotation. The question has been whether the absence of agrochemicals and the differing methods of food production actually produce safer or more nutritious crops.

A recent meta-analysis of 343 peer reviewed studies was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. This analysis uncovered that there are indeed significant differences between organically grown and traditionally grown crops. It was found that organically grown crops have higher antioxidants and lower concentrations of trace metals such as cadmium. I higher intake of antioxidants, such as those found in organic foods in this study, have been found to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer such as colon cancer. Antioxidants have also been linked to a lower risk of certain degenerative neurological conditions.  Low dose, long-term exposure to cadmium can be damaging to the kidneys and can lead to the formation of kidney stones.[http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/cadmium.pdf]

For more detailed information on this study the abstract has been appended below along with a link to the original study.

News that organically grown food is richer in antioxidants is especially encouraging news since there continues to be little evidence that antioxidant supplements have a beneficial effect on health. it appears that not all substances with antioxidant properties have beneficial effects, and in some cases the effects of certain anti-oxidant chemicals can be harmful. What seems to be important for receiving health benefits from antioxidant substances is to obtain them through fresh fruits and vegetables rather than through supplements.

The school of Public health at Harvard has published a good review of the benefits of antioxidants, the just of which reads:

Free radicals contribute to chronic diseases from cancer to heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease to vision loss. This doesn’t automatically mean that substances with antioxidant properties will fix the problem, especially not when they are taken out of their natural context. The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. But keep in mind that most of the trials conducted up to now have had fundamental limitations due to their relatively short duration and having been conducted in persons with existing disease. That a benefit of beta-carotene on cognitive function was seen in the Physicians’ Health Follow-up Study only after 18 years of follow-up is sobering, since no other trial has continued for so long. At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging. [ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ ]

British Journal of Nutrition

Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence

of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature

review and meta-analyses

Abstract;

Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. 

In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.

Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively.

Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd.

Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.

[ http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf ]

The Authors 2014. The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
-----------------------
Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Culinary_fruits_front_view.jpg

Declaring War on the Poor

Brian T. Lynch

Thom Tillis is now Senator elect from North Carolina, having beaten Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in the 2014 election. During his campaign Tillis berated the poor and suggested that those people who can't help being poor, like the truly disabled, should rise up and opposed welfare for the unworthy poor. What he actually said was:

“What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance,” 

North Carolina has 1.1 million poor. That's 13.1% of its population. If these folks voted it would be hard to imagine Tillis getting elected, but Hagan and the Democrats have abandoned the poor and working class in this country as well. Now the poor are under attacks like this:

“We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we've got to start having that serious discussion.” - Thom Tillis

Watch for the U.S. Senate to put Tillis on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to replace Kay Hagan. He is destine to become the chair of the Children and Families Sub-committee with his attitudes. His appointment would amount to a declaration of war on the poor.

So how should sensible people respond to divisive attacks like this on the poor and vulnerable? Should we begin making similar distinctions between the worthy and unworthy rich? Should we affirm those who earned their great wealth and provide social benefit but rescind all advantages given to those who use their inherited wealth to squeeze the people and their government for still more?

How we respond to these questions will define who we are as a nation.

How Free is "Free Will"

by Brian T. Lynch

In my opinion "Free Will" should be very narrowly defined compared to how most people think about it. I see it as something that emerges incrementally along a continuum of actions ranging from autonomic or purely impulsive to counter intuitive and rationally planned. Free will isn't an all or nothing phenomenon. 

For starters, neuroscience tells us that desires and urges are completely separate processes in our brain. Each has its own distinct origins and separate neural pathways. We experience these two processes as indistinguishable drivers of behavior when we accede to them, but their separate nature is quickly apparent when we attempt to consciously defer or delay satisfying them. Urges are far more powerful, and in some cases nearly irresistible. They are at the root of addictions. 

Desires are based on our brains emotional systems. They can also be powerful drivers of behavior, but they can be more easily controlled or differed by our rational brain processes. And, of course, both desires and urges can operate in concert, the perceived strength of our desires often masking the strength of underlying urges. For this reason the early signs of substance addiction is perceived by the addict as a free will choice to participate. It is only when they attempt to change their behavior and refrain from substance use that they discover the power of their addictive urges. We have to take care here to recognize that urges are biologically adaptive drivers of behavior. They help assure survival by powerfully motivating us to fulfill our primary needs, including sexual reproduction and eating. Needless to say urges and desire are often hopelessly co-mingled in areas of primary survival needs further masking the power of urges in control of our behavior. 

I exclude free will from any actions that are driven in part by impulse because it is virtually impossible to know if actions that satisfy an impulse are free will choices or not.  Actions that spring from emotions, including desires, may or may not involve conscious rational though. How ever you might define free will, some element of conscious rational thought must be a component. So actions that arise purely out of raw emotion, without forethought, I would also exclude from free will actions. It is here that the gradual blossoming of free will is most evident. 

When we act to satisfy urges or emotions we really cannot distinguish "free will" from the actions taken since acting on a urge feels identical to acting by choice. That is why people don't even know the extent to which they are addicted until they discover they can't simply stop. Addiction is insidious in that way. No one can say for sure that they smoke by choice after that first cigarette because even six months later the brain can trigger powerful urges for another cigarette.

The same holds true, by degree, with our emotions. We can't know for certain if we are acting on free will when we acquiesce to our feelings since emotions can also overpower free will. We even say we are "acting on our emotions" to explain certain behaviors, but it still feels exactly like a choice, even if we can't help it. So inwardly speaking, we can only no for sure that we are acting on free will when our actions are contrary to both our urges and our feelings. It is only when we place them in check that we can know for sure we are acting on our own free will.

What about free will in circumstances where our only available options for action are proscribed by others, or by circumstances out of our control? If we have no choice but to act, do we have free will? If we have only bad choices, are we exercising free will by making that bad choice? Was Socrates exercising free will when he choose to drink hemlock rather than face a public execution? It so, and I believe he was exercising free will, then a limited form of free will must exist even under extreme forms of coercion.

How we define "free will" has enormous social and political implications because we assess the free will choices of others when judging their actions. It is especially within the Justice system that we see free will emerge as a continuum of responsibility. It is reflected in the various levels of proof and it sentencing guidelines and levels of criminal intent. Jurors are often asked to weigh mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We punish people more harshly when they show criminal intent, which is a level of free will in the commission of a crime. We find people not guilty by reason of insanity when their mental state prevents them from knowing right from wrong, and there are all gradations in between.

These are just examples. In fact, we use these sort of calculations everyday with each other or our children in judging their actions and in modulating our responses. So the idea that free will is an all or nothing phenomenon just isn't born out in our every day experience.

Anyway, here is an interesting article on the subject. http://www.slate.com/…/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will…

Yes, You Have Free Will. This Is Why.

It has become fashionable to say that people have no free will. Many scientists cannot imagine how the idea of free will could be reconciled with the laws of physics and chemistry. Brain researchers say that the brain is just a bunch of nerve cells...

SLATE.COM

Why Democrats Keep Losing!

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

May I rant? It helps me to think out loud. Maybe you will find it helpful too. (or just ignore this if you like.) 

Democrats are loosing in state after state and in federal elections because they are acting too white and wealthy for their base, the REAL latent base of the party. And this base is NOT its liberal donors. Dem donors are nice folks, but they can't compete with the GOP donor machines. (Nor should they try)

According to OpenSecrets.org, from the prior election, two-thirds of corporate donations go to the GOP and one-third to Dem's. That's more than enough money to distract Democratic candidates.  But that's not the whole story.

We already have a party of wealthy white guys, so we don't need another party of wealthy (relative term here, not pejorative) white gals or guys to oppose them. As badly as the GOP is exploiting and marginalizing woman (treating them like subordinates), woman's issues are not winning over woman like it should, not even female Democrats. But that's not the whole story either.

We need a Democratic party that gets intimately in touch with the needs of the ordinary people who haven't been voting lately, people who, from their distal vantage, can't tell the two parties apart. Their issues are literally bread and butter, not theoretical or ideological economics. They live in a deflationary universe where wages are flat and a dollar keeps shrinking. Their daily sweat has been sanitized and turned into a market commodity. There is no profit left in labor for them. They know their children will have no inheritance because everything they own can be sold at a flee market. 

The middle class that we usually picture in our mind is not the middle income folks of today. Popular culture's view, reinforced by network TV's portrayals of middle-class lifestyles, matches people making more than $100,000 a year, twice the median wage. Which politicians for federal office speak openly and bravely for this half of our hard working citizens who make less than $50,000 per year? You can't reach them by talk of job creation! Most of them have more jobs than they can handle. 

If we think of the lower half of wage earners as being made up of those who are working and those looking for work, then 7% unemployed minus the 50% who earn less than a middle wage leaves 43% of the wage earners who are not being represented by either party. Of this group, those who call themselves Democrats aren't showing up to vote. Why should they? What will change when no one seems to notice them? 

Republican in this same low income group do show up to vote, but that's because they are cynically manipulated by the wealthy wing of the GOP. They are voting out of fear, anger and pain. The wealthy wing of the GOP hears their pain even as it twist the knife.

Democrats in public office, or running for office, don't want to ruffle the feathers of the powerful minority groups (Wall Street, CEO's, Billionaires, etc.) even though these folks aren't voting for them.  Money is tight. I get that. 

Let me give you just two examples from two New Jersey congressional races that were below the national radar, The incumbent Republican, Rodney Frelinghuysen, raise 7 times more money than his Democratic challenger, Mark Dunec in the 11th District. Incumbent Republican Leonard Lance raised 8 times more than his Democratic challenger, Janice Kovach in the 7th District. All this money did not come from the 43% of hard working American's who still need some form of government subsidy to survive. 

And what help did these Democratic candidates get from their party elders? Very little! A decision was made to write off these districts. The slick election strategy that carefully targets resources to the most competitive races writes off the needs of millions of people who have every right to be represented. The big get out the vote strategy touted by the party fizzled because they didn't have an explosive message to motivate the 43%ers. 

People who live below the median wage level have one thing in common with the richest billionaires... their vote is just as powerful. One person! One vote! It isn't how corporations operate; It's how democracies operate. And until Democrats start collecting those uncast vote, instead of appeasing the rich, Democrats will continue to loose.

It is time to stop playing the Republican's game. 

Here is a helpful article by Robert Reich that says in fewer word what I am trying to say above. 

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1342950

Anyway, I'm done with my rant. Thanks for listening, even if you didn't make it this far. All the best in the future.

________________________________

Image Credit: http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2011/05/24/iec-declares-election-free-and-fair/

Should Living Wage Minimums be Based on Individuals or Families?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act - Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

Question:  In looking at the Living Wage calculator, I see that $10.83 for a single adult in Morris County, New Jersey where I live. This seems fair to me for a single person, but when you add one child to that scenario the rate jumps to $22.12 per hour. This raises a serious question.  Does the Living Wage Movement suggest that wages should be adjusted according to need? [ http://livingwage.mit.edu/ ]

Answer:  That's a great question. I am not a spokesman for, or advocate of, the living wage movement as an organization. I do believe that living wages should be the minimum wage in this country.  Minimum living wages should be what we pay summer college help or student interns, not full-time employees. It might also be appropriate for part-time seasonal help. It shouldn't be what we pay permanently hired employees.

To answer your question, I researched what a living wage is in the 130 cities that have living wage laws. It turns out that their wage base is for a single employee, not including any dependents. A living wage in Manchester CT equals $15.54/hour (the highest) while it is $8.50 in Orlando FL (the lowest).  It would appear that the Living Wage Movement is looking to index a minimum living wage minimum to local economies based on one adult with no dependents.

That said, the minimum wage in 1986 was $10.86/hour  as opposed to its current level of $7.25/hour.  If it had been indexed to inflation in 1986 the current minimum wage today would be $23.59/hour today. That clearly was intended to provide for a worker with a family. The current median family size is 2.54 persons per household. That inflation adjusted wage equals about $47,000 per year while the current median family wage is a little over $51,000 per year (and still declining, I might add).

Here's the thing, we have only been talking about wage adjustments to keep pace with inflation. We have not been talking about raising wages to reward workers for our growing productivity. We haven't been talking about sharing the wealth that workers help create so everyone keeps pace with America's growing economy. Cost of living adjustments are important, but they shouldn't be confused with a productivity, or merit raise.

America is $1.7 trillion richer today than it was in 1976. Our economy has doubled, yet the share of all that new wealth created by American workers in this same period is insignificant.

In the 1960's my father was an appliance repairman at Sears. His salary was enough that my mother could stay home and raise my sister and me. Her role as mother to the next generation of citizens was valued. Today, a typical family of four earns about $51,000 only because both parents work. They are only able to make ends meet because of easy access to credit to shift their financial burdens onto their future earnings.

When I speak about a living wage I dream of getting back to a point where one breadwinner can hold one full-time job and still raise a small family without needing government assistance to do it. That's what we had, and that should be our goal for America.

Minimum Wage is a Moral Question

EDITORIAL

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act - Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

The White House put out a brief video on why we should raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour. It is OK as far it goes, but it is still a little disappointing to me.

Click here to see the video. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqtLQgkcUFM ]

Even the White House is looking at minimum wage law though the modern day pro-business bias that has infected all of civil government. Even though raising bottom wages creates an economic stimulus that would boost spending, increase demand for goods and services and create more jobs, this isn't the most important aspect. The main reason to raise minimum wages is because it's simply the right thing to do.

The question of minimum wage is actually a moral question. There is no good rationale for paying a full-time employee less than a self-sufficient wage. What is almost half of a human beings waking moments worth? What is the minimum compensation they should receive for devoting that time to enrich their employers? Why should it be less than what is required to survive with human dignity?

From a social perspective, should profitable businesses be held in high esteem as models of efficiency for paying wages so low that full-time employees require taxpayer subsidy to keep from becoming homeless or having their children taken away from them? Should we have to subsidize the labor force of wealthy corporations like Walmart? Should the federal income taxes of those who make more than minimum wage have to be used to supplement the other employees who takes out the trash at night or mow the lawn? Why should any healthy corporation be allowed to boost their profits at public expense through subsidized labor?

If small businesses or start-up company need government subsidies or tax breaks to help pay their help, let these business owners apply for government assistance rather than make their employees feel inadequate by having to beg for government assistance. No man or woman who works hard all day long should have to apply for housing assistance or SNAP or KidCare or childcare assistance or HEAP or any other government subsidy. Let the business owners apply for government aid to help pay employees the self-sufficient wages all full-time workers should have. Let the means testing process for government subsidy programs fall to the employers. Let's get it off the backs of the working poor and eliminate the social stigma they don't deserve. Let the minimum cost of self-sufficient labor wages be part of the cost of doing business in America.

Profits for CEO's and share holders should not come before self-sufficient wages for laborers. Exploiting workers and taxpayers to boost profits for investors and chief executives is immoral.

Data Driven Viewpoints: Why I blog

Data Driven Viewpoints: Why I blog:

Why I blog

I spent my entire career listening to the personal, often tragic stories of children and parents in need.  I did my best to help families make sense of the pain and confusion they experienced.  I tried to help them make plans, to take steps to regain control over their lives and pursue their dreams.  I advocated to marshal the assistance they needed from the larger social service community and their government.   It wasn't easy work. 

My work brought me into contact with all the major social issues or our day and all of our basic institutions such as law enforcement agencies, courts, prisons, schools, hospitals and medical professionals, county social services and welfare agencies, psychiatric hospitals, universities, non-profit service agencies and governments on the local, state and federal levels.

This was a privileged vantage point from which I observed every level of our human ecology, from the lives of individuals to the operations of government institutions.   The impact of state and federal policy on the unique lives of ordinary people was amazing, and often disturbing to see.  The rising tide of political conflict and the clash of ideologies has real, observable and sometimes devastating consequences.

An old African proverb says:  "When elephants fight the grass dies."  This sums up what inspired me to create this blog.  I want to share my perspective on issues that impact the lives of ordinary Americans.  I want to give voice to those who are too often ignored.  I want to help inform our political dialogue with the best data I can find, data that can be independently verified. 

Ideology is no substitute for reason.  Our political leaders can agree or disagree on principles, but when there is no agreement on facts there can be no common understanding and no effective action to help strengthen families and our communities.

What I do here is completely non-commercial.  I don't, and will never, take a time in advertising for this site. Everything I publish here is free for you to use or republish so long as you properly attribute it to me and this Website. I am very grateful to you for taking the time to read my posts, and I encourage you to engage with me through comments. Feel free to contact me directly via email at brilyn37@aol.com.  Thank you!

Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Police Homicides, What We Know and Don't Know

I've started the following petition:

"Barack Obama and Harry Reid and John Boehner: Pass a law mandating that law enforcement must file a report with the FBI every time a police shooting results in the death of a citizen."   I am asking for your help to get this petition off the ground.

Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-and-harry-reid-and-john-boehner-pass-a-law-mandating-that-law-enforcement-must-file-a-report-with-the-fbi-every-time-a-police-shooting-results-in-the-death-of-a-citizen

Here's why it's important:

Do you know how many people are shot and killed by law enforcement every year?  No?

Neither does anyone else. Records aren't collected for what is called police homicides, which includes justifiable shootings.

There are 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States but no national database to track police killings of civilians. The FBI maintains a partial data based of reports submit on a voluntary basis. Only 750 law enforcement agencies, just 44% , volunteer to submit their data. What the FBI  does collect are only those cases in which the police homicides were considered justified by the departments reporting. There is no auditing or review process either.  It has been reported that the US Border Patrol doesn't even report shooting up their chain of command.

When government law enforcement officers kill civilians it is everyone's right to know about it. We are all ultimately responsible for the actions of our government. The first logical step is to require that records be kept for public inspection.

What does the currently limited information show?

There are about 400 justified police homicides per year. Every week in this country there are two incidents like the one in Ferguson, Missouri, involving a white police officer shooting a black citizen. About half of all police homicides involve black citizens, and among the population of folks 21 years old or younger, the police homicide rate for blacks is 18%, twice the rate for white citizens (8.7%).

Again, these numbers are based on voluntary self-report from less than half of all law enforcement agencies nation wide.  It seems evident from what we know and don't know that collecting better, more complete information about police homicides is important.

You can sign my petition by clicking here.

Thanks!
Brain T. Lynch, MSW

-----------------------------------

Related Stories on this Blog

Three People Die in Police Custody Every Day

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/three-people-die-daily-in-police-actions.html

Police Action Fatalities in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/police-action-fatalities-in-america.html

New Data Exposes Racial Bias in Fatal Police Encounters Nationwide

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-data-exposes-racial-bias-in-fatal.html

Serve and Protect or Enforce and Collect, The Changing Character of Local Police

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/06/serve-and-protect-or-enforce-and.html

Police Killings Not Uncommon, Exact Numbers Are Unknown

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/08/police-killings-not-uncommon-exact.html

Consequences of Militarized Police Departments in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/05/consequences-of-militarized-police.html

Stop-and-Frisk and Racial Profiling, What We Should Know

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/06/stop-and-frisk-and-racial-profiling.html

Buying Back the U.S. Senate

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Dark money from anonymous donors is pouring into the 2014 Senate races. According to Jon Terbush at The Week magazine, midterm election spending this year will "blow away" prior campaign spending records.

"Spending by outside groups in particular is on pace to reach an unprecedented level this cycle," he wrote. "To this point in 2010, outside groups had spent $10.4 million... to date, such groups have spent more than three times as much on the 2014 races."

He offered this graph which show the 2014 spending to date:

There is no doubt that big donations are flooding into politics since the Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court. Another factor is the proliferation of highly political 501 C non-profit organizations. More than ever these organization take advantage of IRS policy to fund issue advertizing for their partisan candidates. All this money is narrowly concentrated. It comes from a few billionaires or from a relatively small number of special interest groups. Senators become obligated to their wealthy donors while the majority of citizens are not being well served. Much disaffection between citizens and their government has resulted from special interest politics, and this often suits corporate interests

The biggest price tags for US Senate seats this year are in Georgia and North Carolina. Spending between these races is expected to be nearly $50 million dollars, most of which will come from large donations. How on earth can average citizens compete with such big donors for the attention and fidelity of their Senate representatives? There is growing certainty that our Republic no longer represents the interests of most ordinary citizens.

Here's part of the problem. Big numbers are very hard to comprehend. Our brains aren't wired to grasp numbers in the millions or billions. So if we want to understand how expensive our elections really are, we have to break down the cost into manageable units.

Using Senate campaign cost estimates from the McClatchy news organization, and some census data, the following table breaks down Senate election costs by population segments. For example, the Michigan race is expected to cost $13.9 million this year, a lot of money, yet it breaks down to $1.85 for every adult living in the state. This is very close to the national average of $1.87 per adult for this Senate elections cycle. The really expensive Senate elections this year, on a per adult basis, are actually in Alaska and Arkansas where spending will be nearly $12 for every vote that is likely to be cast. Consider also that Senate elections take place every six years. That works out to just $2 per year per likely voter in the most expensive Senate seat, or about $1.10 for each Alaskan adult.

*Estimates are from the McClatchy News Service as published in the New Jersey Star Ledger.

Here then are some numbers that most people can comprehend. The average cost to an individual for this very expensive Senate election works out to just 31¢ per year per Senator. This is all it would cost you to buy back your vote.

Elections cost money. To get the money interests out of politics people have to put money into it. We can't let billionaires and special interest group buy the Congress at such bargain prices. It is time to step to the plate and publicly finance our Republic.

Yes we need to undo Citizen's United and make clear that corporations are not people. We need to do a lot of things, but nothing will restore our voice in government better than fronting the cost of election campaigns. When politicians need both our money and our vote we will have their full attention. Even a few dollars a month would go a long way to fund our democracy.  It would do more to help the poor and support the middle class than almost anything else we could buy. We could even discount campaign finance contributions for everyone who registers to vote.

As essential as voting is to fulfilling our civic duty, funding our Republic and being knowledgeable and engaged in public issues are just as critical.

When Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government we have as he left the Constitutional Convention of 1787 he famously remarked, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Now we know what he meant. It's time to take back our Republic from special interest groups and quirky billionaires. This time let's invest our time, talents and money to keep it in the hands of ordinary people where it belongs.

Henry Shapiro - The Piano Man

SPECIAL NOTICE!

Hank Shapiro will be performing at the UpStream Grill in Jefferson Twp., NJ on the 1st Wednesday of every month starting on January 6, 2016. at 6:30 pm. Please come out and enjoy his piano playing.

 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbcOQNbnUX4

or

http://youtu.be/7Uc6BYuASxI

Henry Shapiro (my father-in-law) began his musical career around 1935 or 1936. He learned his craft by taking lesson in New York City with the same piano teacher who taught George Gershwin. At age 16 he had his own 12 piece big band, the Henry Shapiro Band. He played in various venues in Morris County and Northern New Jersey, including various dance halls around Lake Hopatcong. He is a life long member of the Dover Musician's Union. He moved to Florida in the 1970's where he continued playing at private parties and restaurants in the Fort Meyers area.  His love of music and entertaining as kept him young. Now, at the age of 94, he is back in Morris County, NJ where it all began for him, playing gigs wherever he can. The You Tube video above was from a June 12, 2015 performance at an open mic event sponsored by the Folk Project in Morristown, New Jersey ( http://folkproject.org/ ).

So click on the You Tube link and enjoy. Let me know what you think or contact me if you would like to get in touch with Henry.  

Thank you.

Here is Henry's orchestra circa 1937.  That's him on the piano.  

Evolution of Modern Christianity

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

After 2000 years of Christianity, the idea that the Bible is incapable of being wrong first developed among Protestants about 100 years ago. http://j.mp/1oCQrA0.  But it is a mistake to view each and every detail of the Bible as inerrant. Anyone who holds this belief can't possibly be correct since the Bible is so self-contradictory.

Do you want some examples? Try taking this New Testament biblical quiz: [ http://exchristian.net/3/ ]. It is a very humbling experience.

The Bible may be the inspired word of God, but it certainly was not written in a day. It was drafted over more than a thousand years. The New Testament was likewise drafted over the course of nearly 200 years, starting about 50 years after Jesus' death. It was written by mostly anonymous authors in various locations, none of whom were eye witnesses to the events in Jesus' life.

If you wanted to read the New Testament in the order it was written, you would have to start with the letters of Paul, probably beginning with Thessalonians. The remarkable aspects of these earliest writings of Paul is that he never quotes Jesus nor provides any biographical information about him. This couldn't have been because the words of Jesus were well documented, since these were literally the first documents written.

The first Gospel of the New Testament was the book of Mark, written some 20 years after Paul's letters. This was the first draft of the life, times and sayings of Jesus. Some scholars believe that Mark served as a template for the later works. Written 70 plus years after Jesus' death, the author of this Gospel is unknown. It has the fewest biographical details about Jesus and the least amount of red ink (direct Jesus quotes). This account begins with John the Baptist at the start of Jesus' ministry. It tells us that his family thought he was out of his mind while others thought he was possessed by the devil. It ends with his crucifixion, resurrection and being "taken up into heaven". In addition to having fewer details than subsequent accounts, it also has certain details that are missing in later Gospels. For example, Mark very specifically states that the cross of Jesus was carried by another person.

"A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross."

In the other Gospels, Jesus carried his own cross, falling down several times under the burden, etc. The point here being that details are fluid and sometimes contradictory, as would be expected given the generations over which the New Testaments were written.

The Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written sometime between 80 and 90 years after Jesus' death. It was later named after Matthew, who was certainly not alive to write this text. And then, surprise, the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John followed, probably in that order, but who knows exactly? The last of the four Gospel's was the book of Luke. It may have been written as late as 120 years after Jesus died.

The last book written in the New Testament is 2 Peter, believed to have been written between 150 and 200 CE.

Of course there were very many other scriptures and texts written during the first and second century about Jesus and the early Christian church. The task of sorting all this out to come up with a single version of the New Testament began in earnest in the 4th Century, concluding around the middle of the 7th Century. However, even today there remains differences in what constitutes the Holy Bible. For example, the Old Testament Book of Wisdom is included in the Catholic bibles but not the Protestant bibles. Most Christian fundamentalists today rely on the Protestant version for their sources. They do not accept the Book of Wisdom, for example. Add to this the fact that every different translations leads to different interpretations.

I believe it is fair to say the New Testament was written by many people over a number of generations and refined into the several versions we have today over the course of many centuries. It was not created in a day. It evolved,  Just as the Christian understanding of its means and the whole Christian experience have evolved over time. The Catholic Church today certainly doesn't act on many of the beliefs it held in the 13th or 14th Centuries. Over the millennium many different sects and permutations of Christianity formed and dissolved. Each group has pulled from different details, translations or interpretations to create unique constructs. Each group has, in turn, been challenged or even attacked by other Christian groups doing the same. In this way, what it means to be Christian has evolved, and it will continue to do so well into the future.

There is plenty of room for doubt when interpreting bible passages. In fact, there is plenty of room to doubt the legitimacy of the whole Christian faith if you are inclined to do so. The existence of God, after all, cannot be proven or disproven. This is what distinguishes faith and knowledge.

But the leap from faith to a fundamentalist dogma that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is another matter. Religious faith need not require the rejection of reason nor intellect. Belief in what is, or can be known, and faith in what we cannot know, are not mutually exclusive until we cross the line into religious fanaticism. Religious fanatics reject empirical facts that contradict any of their religious claims. The rejection of empirical reality is, in fact, what defines fanatic beliefs. In this regard all religious fanatics are alike. They require a fidelity to tenants of faith that directly contradict the natural world of the Creator God they worship.

In the long arch of history, those who reject the evolution of Christian faith, those who try to deconstruct our present knowledge or force conformity to an unsustainable Christian understanding will ultimate fail. The only question is what damage will they do along the way. Who will suffer and for how long before the latest versions of religious fanaticism become extinct.