Imagine if Elon Musk, Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year,” put his mind to minimizing the frequency of and damage from forest fires. Suppose that he also focused on helping the United States and the world deal with mitigating other damage that is already being done to Planet Earth as a result of climate change. Would he be contributing more to the wellbeing of humanity than his efforts to help us colonize Mars?

Musk is truly a remarkable man and is deserving of being Time’s “Person of the Year,” award, although I think that Joe Manchin would have been a better selection because of all the impact he has had on the progressive agenda. Musk’s automobile enterprise, Tesla, is currently the world’s biggest selling electric car company. He is also one of a handful of private pioneers of space travel with an ultimate goal of colonizing Mars. His SpaceX program is a main shuttle between Earth and the International Space Station and is truly innovative because in large part it is reusable.

Time estimates Musk’s current net worth to be $250 billion; that’s a quarter of a trillion dollars! He is by far the world’s wealthiest individual. Just a few years ago, Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Bill Gates of Microsoft were duking it out for that honor, with net worths in the seventy billions of dollars.

But during the week of Musk’s mug on the face of Time, things happened on Earth which highlight the destruction that is already occurring on Earth as a result of climate change. A rash of tornados broke out across the country, killing nearly 100 people. The town of in Mayfield, Kentucky had a wide swath thoroughly decimated. Minnesota, which had never before had a tornado in December, had several.

A number of communities in the Midwest and South had record low temperatures. We’re not talking about cold weather; we’re referencing the highest December low temperatures on record.

The plains states were pummeled with straight-line winds of over one hundred miles per hour. Forest fires were occurring not only in California and Arizona, but also in Kansas and Nebraska.

It is not as if the world is not trying to combat climate change; individuals in all countries are working diligently on inventing and installing greener modes of energy to help power their countries. Elon Musk may be doing more than anyone individual with his development of the electric cars powered by more powerful batteries, that he too has played a large role in inventing.

If we get to a world dominated by electric cars, it will cut back on the emissions of gasoline-powered cars that contribute so much to climate change. But much damage to the climate has already been done. We need to engage in accelerated remedial work on this planet. These will be extremely costly, and that’s where Musk and his resources come in.

Much of the West Coast is experiencing prolonged drought. Many western states are experiencing forest fires the likes of which we have never seen before. These conflagrations will continue for decades or centuries before we could make enough positive changes to the environment to minimize such natural disasters.

So how could we either prevent or minimize or minimize the damage of forest fires? Clearly, one way is to provide enormous quantities of fresh water to the areas at risk. Here is a possible idea:

We should develop enormous desalination plants along the American coast of the Pacific Ocean. Build huge pipelines from the plants to areas in the west that are experiencing drought and are at greatest risk for forest fires. Desalination is the process by which salt water is heated to the boiling point and then the steam in condensed into pools of fresh water. The salt and other impurities are left behind to be disposed in an environmentally safe fashion. The fresh water can then be pumped inland to the areas most likely to spawn forest fires, or farmland which needs to be irrigated, or to freshwater reservoirs to directly serve individuals and businesses.

This would cost enormous amounts of money, but it would save billions of dollars by preventing destruction. It would also create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs. Musk could utilize his resources to be part of a team that designs, manufactures and installs these systems. It could even be profit-making with reimbursements from both governments and private utilities.

While this may seem like an overwhelming project, let’s remember that Musk has established himself as a premier player in the race to Mars. That excites and engages many people, but right now we need to address new and increasing calamities occurring on Earth. Mr. Musk, please focus on where we all live.

The post If Elon Musk Really Wanted to Change The World appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s really hard to be a Democrat these days. Yes, at the moment, we have a slim majority in the House of Representatives and the slenderest of margins in the Senate. Joe Biden is our president. All of this contributes to why it is especially important now for Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to join their fellow Democrats and support the Build Back Better Act.

Everything comes with difficulty for Democrats. It’s not like with the Republicans where there is a myriad of ways to say no, to obstruct, to negate, to undermine. Democrats have to deal with a real diversity of opinions within their ranks and focus on constructing policy rather than destructing programs.

In 2009-10, Democrats had a slim workable majority in Congress and were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. It was a significant step forward, but because of literally no help from Republicans and some dissension within their ranks, it was a watered-down version of the bill that President Barack Obama wanted. It did not include the public option which would have given citizens the right to choose a government-sponsored health care program that would have been more affordable than others because unlike private plans, it did not involve make a profit for the insurer. Despite the absence of the public option, the ACA was the biggest new federal program passed since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Right now, there is an opportunity for Democrats to once again pass major legislation. They have done so with the COVID-related American Rescue Plan and then the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. But there is a third piece of legislation that will really strengthen the social and economic safety net that was created in President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and then the Great Society. It is the Build Back Better Act.

This omnibus bill is a remarkable proposal that provides comprehensive benefits for everyone from infants to the very elderly. Once again, it appears that there will be no help in the Senate in passing the bill. And, if history serves us right, next year’s mid-term elections will see one or both houses of Congress revert to the Republicans. That will put an end to any meaningful social, economic and human rights legislation that Joe Biden wants to pass.

This is why now is not the time for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to not jack around Biden, Congressional Democrats and the American people. We have a window of opportunity that is almost certain to shut after next year’s elections. Currently, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others can go to Manchin and Sinema and ask them to support the Build Back Better Act. Manchin in particular has shown a willingness to meet, even at inconvenient hours. He hears, though we don’t know how well he listens. But this is the time for him to accept the wins that he has already accomplished (including reduction of the bill by more than a trillion dollars). He could still qualify to be TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year because he has perhaps had more influence of the US, if not the world, than any other person. TIME awards the honor whether the change effected by the recipient is positive or negative.

After the 2022 mid-terms, Democrats will likely be in the minority. Any talks between Biden and Congressional leaders with Manchin or Sinema will be meaningless. As the political pendulum has swung in recent years, there may not be another opportunity for a decade or more.

So, Joe and Kyrsten, whether your really are Democrats or not, now is the time to at least pretend to be one and help the party in this infrequent window of opportunity. Tomorrow’s next chance is far too far off.

The post Another reason why Manchin and Sinema should vote like Dems, at least for now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been clear for some time that Joe Manchin is a one-man wrecking crew. With help from Kyrsten Sinema, for the past seven months, he has essentially stopped all major legislation that the Biden Administration and Congressional leadership have wanted passed. He has played right into the hands that Donald Trump and his legion of sycophants have wanted – making Biden appear weak and ineffectual.

Progressive Democrats can be praised for their strategy that has kept alive the possibility of a significant “soft infrastructure” bill with a price tag of $2.5 trillion or more. But without demonstrative help from Manchin and Sinema, each day is another one in which nothing happens, and Biden appears incapable of enacting his agenda.

With the exception of the Trumpsters, Biden is personally liked by most American voters. But his affability is not enough to keep his popularity above water – above 50%. That is the minimum level for it to be for Democrats to have a chance to hold on the Senate and the House in the 2022 mid-term elections.

When Biden took office in January of this year, his ratings were in the mid to high 50s. Now, he has slipped to 43%, far too low to help keep his party in power following next year’s elections, particularly since 2022 will reflect a new landscape with further Republican gerrymandering and undermining of our electoral systems at the state levels.

As reported in Gabe Fleisher’s Wake Up to Politics, one Quinnipiac poll released last week showed that Biden’s approval rating was recorded as low as 38%; among independents, his approval rating sank to 32% while his disapproval rating swelled to 60%.

It would seem logical to cast blame on Biden himself, but he has skillfully and patiently worked with all segments of his party as well as some Republicans to advance the legislation that is fundamental to his programs to improve the economic, social, and human rights qualities of life in America.

The central problem is with the way in which the Democratic Party is stuck in stagnation. While there are now hundreds of outstanding Democratic legislators in Congress, they each have particular elements of a people-centric agenda that they want to advance. The problem is that at this point, virtually nothing is advancing.

In the current political quagmire, we have heard the often-used term, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If that were ever true, now would be the time. President Biden, the fifty Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the 220 Democrats in the House are spinning their wheels, each trying to get a little more of what is best for them and their constituents.

Now is the time for President Biden and Congressional leaders to pull together and determine what their “lowest common legislation denominator” is. What legislation would be in a package that they could agree upon NOW.

It might not be much, but at least it would get things moving. Voters would see new construction projects with those wonderful signs adorning them, “Your tax dollars at work.”

Get the low-hanging-fruit, and then work to pull together winning alliances for the remaining parts of the Democratic legislative agenda. If something is not going to pass, put it near the top of campaign planks for 2022 and 2024. But keep going back to passing what you can. There is enough that Manchin and Sinema want to keep the bucket of legislative accomplishments in motion. Democrats should keep in mind that virtually all of their proposed policies are overwhelmingly favored by the American people. As Republicans get more and more absurd in their priorities, Democrats stand to gain further strength with the American people.

Right now, the most effective thing that Democrats can do to optimize passage of the legislative priorities is to make Joe Biden look good. He is doing his part. Others need to rally around him. Let’s put some of these disagreements into the ‘W’ column for the Democratic Party and then further build off that momentum.

The post Democrats need to rally behind Biden appeared first on Occasional Planet.

America’s infrastructure is a mess. Whether you live in a city, a suburb, a small town, a village, or a rural area, you don’t need to go far to see the neglect and deterioration of our shared public spaces. Roads and bridges are crumbling. The country’s railroad system is lagging decades behind the technological modernization that’s been underway for years across Europe and Asia. The power grid is all too susceptible to winds, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding, and thunderstorms. The terrifying effects of climate change are real and present. Planning for sea-rise flooding in coastal cities and communities is more than four decades behind where it could have been had the fossil-fuel companies not engaged in a successful, multi-million-dollar campaign to hoodwink the American public about the reality of the connection between global warming and fossil fuels.

Misplaced priorities

With all of the dire infrastructure needs and climate-change effects threatening the future of the planet and the country’s national security, what is the current priority for large-scale projects our taxpayer dollars will be paying for in the near future?  We all know the answer. Look no further than the glint in Donald Trump’s eyes when he pontificates about his “beautiful” wall. Tragically, the building of the wall is becoming more than just a vanity project. The Trump administration recently announced its intention to divert an additional $7.2 billion from the military budget to build Trump’s wall at the southern border. Add that $7.2 billion to the $3.6 billion already diverted, and you come up with an eye-bulging price tag of $10.8 billion that might be used to build a fence or steel slats or a wall—or some unknown combination that’s being kicked around in the White House on any given day.

Not addressing the real crises

Set aside for a moment doubts about the necessity for America’s bloated and often wasteful military budget, because, according to Military Times, of the $7.2 billion, $3.7 billion had been designated for sorely needed infrastructure improvements to outdated facilities on military bases, like training centers and schools. The balance, another $3.5 billion, had been earmarked to increase counter-drug operations. Would anyone doubt that that’s a worthy investment when you consider the number of drug-related deaths due in large part to illegally produced fentanyl? In 2019 alone, there were more than 70,000 Americans who died from drug-related causes and overdoses. That’s not a delusion of desperate families and refugees taking over America. That’s a real crisis.

$24.4 million per mile

To put the cost of building the border barrier in perspective, consider what the cost per mile might be. In January of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to Congress outlining that $5.7 billion could pay for about 234 miles of a new steel barrier along the 2,000-mile southern border. That means that in 2019 dollars, the cost of the construction of a steel-slatted barrier (not a concrete wall) would be $24.4 million per mile. And that number doesn’t even take into account typical construction-cost overruns, earth moving, or short- and long-term maintenance costs.

Border barrier versus sustainable energy

Here’s the question. To what better use could the cost of just one mile of border barrier that’s being touted as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist be spent for a problem that does? Here’s an example of how our taxpayer dollars might be used more effectively to address a real crisis—the necessity to create sustainable energy on a large scale in order to prevent the most dire effects of a warming planet.

Here are the facts. Installing solar panels on a residential building in the U.S. costs, on average, $15,000 per home after tax rebates. That means that for the cost of one mile of border barrier, 1,626 buildings—or all of the buildings in the two contiguous villages where I reside in Columbia County, New York, plus every farm in the county could be solarized. Imagine for a moment the volume of electricity that could be fed back into the grid from solar panels on 1,626 buildings. And take another moment to reflect on what it could mean in long-term cost savings for individuals, families, businesses, farmers, and municipalities in just one county to become energy self-reliant. Now zoom out and reflect on how the total cost of construction of a 234-mile barrier (which, by the way, leaves approximately 1,800 miles of unprotected border) could solarize 700,020 homes—or all of the homes in the Upstate New York cities of Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo.

Border barrier versus a future of sustainable energy—which one would get your vote?

The post Trump’s “beautiful wall” vs. America’s ugly infrastructure appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission, which was the first time man walked on the moon. December 11th, 1972 was the last time that man set foot on the moon. This means that it has been over 45 years since man last walked on the moon. I say “man” here because out of the 12 humans who have set foot on the moon, all of them happened to be men. One would think that with all the technological and societal advancements that we have made since the 70s, we would have made it back to the moon again already, and we definitely would have landed a woman on the moon. But alas, NASA had to stop sending men to the moon because they no longer had the money to fund the costly missions. In fact, in today’s terms, the cost of the Apollo missions would be roughly $152 billion. Because NASA stopped sending people to the moon, we now have to pay Russia roughly $80 million per astronaut to send them to the International Space Station. Of course with prices like these, there are going to be plenty of people opposed to furthering space exploration, when the money could be put towards a different area of need.

Here’s the dilemma: do we give NASA more money so that they can send people to the moon again, or do we allocate that money to a more important area of need in the United States? We must ask ourselves if the end goal of getting to the Moon was dedicated to scientific exploration, or was America simply trying to beat the Soviets as a way to show dominance? Interestingly enough, the United States has actually come pretty close to using space as a way to show military dominance over the Soviets through a little operation called Project A119. This was a military initiative undergone by the U.S. Air Force whose purpose was to strike the moon with a nuclear bomb. Yeah, you read that right. During the Space Race and the height of the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force thought there was no better way to show off their power capabilities to the Soviet Union than by nuking the moon. They wanted the Soviets to be able to see the “mushroom cloud” of the nuclear blast from down on Earth, and thus, be struck with intense fear of the United States and its nuclear capabilities. Fortunately, the U.S. didn’t follow through with this plan since scientists determined that they would not receive the “mushroom cloud” reaction from the explosion that they would have wanted.

Thankfully, not everyone views space exploration as a means of promulgating military power like our current president does. Instead, there are people like Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, who have a more peaceful vision for the future of space exploration. In a recent interview with CBS, the Amazon CEO, supported by Kennedy, discussed his theory of The Great Inversion. He explains that currently we send things into space that are made on Earth, but through this Great Inversion, we will have highly manufactured products made in space and then sent back down to Earth. He gives the example of microprocessors as one of these products that would be helpful to have produced in space. Eventually, he believes that the Earth will be zoned solely residential, and that people will be able to choose between living on Earth or living somewhere else in space. If you think all of this sounds optimistic, wait until you hear what’s in store for Bezos’s aerospace company, Blue Origin.

Founded almost 20 years ago, Bezos’s Blue Origin has become one of the top tech companies to achieve many advancements in the field of space travel. Ever since Bezos was in high school, he has believed that the Earth is finite, and in order for the world economy and population to keep expanding, space exploration is the way to go. In fact, Jeff Bezos is so optimistic about space travel, that he believes he will journey to space within his lifetime. He plans to do this by pioneering a new industry dedicated to space tourism. One of his first projects in this new field is that of the suborbital rocket system named New Shepard, after the first American who traveled into space, Alan Shepard.

Aboard New Shepard, passengers will experience an 11 minute flight just above the Kármán Line, the internationally recognized boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and the boundary of outer space. If this sounds like something you’d be willing to try, then I suggest you visit Blue Origin’s website and reserve your seat. That way, when tickets for the 11 minute journey into space go on sale, you can be first in line (along with the many other people who have already reserved their seat too of course). Additionally, on their website you can request to have a payload sent to space on New Shepard for research and technology purposes, but fair warning, this requires a lot of paperwork, so serious inquiries only!

Thus far, New Shepard has successfully flown 8 NASA payloads to space, completed 12 test flights, and most recently, it completed its sixth flight reusing the same rocket and capsule, which further emphasizes the importance of reusability to Blue Origin. As previously mentioned, space travel costs a lot of money, but Bezos believes that we can make it cheaper by creating reusable rockets. In fact, next in store for Blue Origin is New Glenn, a heavy-lift launch vehicle named after the first American to orbit the Earth, John Glenn. Like New Shepard, New Glenn is designed to carry both research payloads and people, but it is expected to have a lifetime of at least 25 missions, and is twice as big as any existing rocket. Thus far, $2.5 billion has been invested in New Glenn, and its first mission is set to take place in 2021. Of course this is a large sum of money, but when you’re the CEO of Amazon, it’s simple.

Since this year is the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, we can’t help but wonder, when are humans returning to the moon? Well according to the Trump administration, Americans will be back on the moon by the year 2024. In order to help NASA achieve this goal, Jeff Bezos and his company have designed a lunar landing module called Blue Moon. But, Bezos’s plan is not to just go to the moon and come right back. Instead, he envisions a lunar colony as the first step in his greater plan to have humans live in outer space. Blue Moon’s framework is essential to achieving this dream, since the landing module is powered by liquid hydrogen, meaning that it is able to be refueled upon landing, since NASA has confirmed the presence of ice found on the moon. Bezos is so optimistic about humans living in outer space that he envisions humans living in O’Neill Colonies, which were first introduced by American physicist Gerard K. O’Neill. These colonies are basically spinning structures that feature agricultural areas, high speed transportation, and even entire cities, all floating in a giant cylinder in outer space. Bezos has described the climate in these cylinders as like “Maui on it’s best day all year long.” Who wouldn’t want to live in such a place? Well, this doesn’t really matter to anyone reading this right now, since we will be long gone by the time these O’Neill Colonies could even be put into use.

On a brighter note, something that we might be able to witness within our lifetime is humans on Mars! NASA actually plans to have boots on Mars by the 2030s. When it comes to private companies though, Bezos is focused on space tourism and going to the moon, whereas, Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, is more determined to get humans to Mars. Founded in 2002, the goal of SpaceX as stated on their website is to “enable people to live on other planets,” the first of which being Mars. Elon Musk believes that if he could make the cost of flying to Mars equivalent to the cost of buying a $500,000 home in California, then he thinks that there would be enough people willing to buy a ticket, that humans could eventually inhabit Mars. Like Bezos, many of Musk’s aspirations may sound impossible, but we have to remember that at some point in time, humans thought it impossible to put a man on the moon.

But at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves, is the goal to send humans to Mars, or is the goal to colonize Mars? Should we be fixing our own problems here on this planet before we destroy another one? With these questions in mind, one can only wonder, is all of this just a big waste of money? Should we be using the one billion dollar yearly budget that Blue Origin has on something else? Even back when man landed on the moon 50 years ago, there were concerns that the money the U.S. government was spending on space exploration could be better spent. A man named Ralph Abernathy coordinated a group of 500 people at the Kennedy Space Center days before the Apollo 11 launch, as a way to protest the government’s spending on the project, since there were starving children out on the streets. Another reason why people might be hesitant to top companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX making rapid advancements is because there is a possibility that the U.S. government will view these advancements as possible tools of war, like they almost did with the Soviets. But then again, that’s what the Space Force is for, right?

To wrap up this article on a somewhat lighter note, here’s a short list of 10 things you might not have known about the missions to the moon:

1. As a member of the Apollo 14 mission, Alan Shepard became the first man to hit a golf ball on the moon.
2. On the moon, if you were to drop a hammer and a feather at the same time, they would fall to the surface at the same speed.
3. The Apollo 11 crew took remnants of fabric and a small piece of wood from the original Wright Flyer to the moon.
4. Buzz Aldrin took the Holy Communion once Apollo 11 landed on the moon before Armstrong took his famous first step.
5. President Nixon had a statement already written in case the Apollo 11 mission didn’t go as planned, and the astronauts died on the mission.
6. A Jamestown cargo tag from a ship that traveled from England to the New World in 1611 flew to the ISS and back on the 400th anniversary of the colony.
7. The light-saber used by Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi was sent to orbit aboard Space Shuttle Discovery to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the original Star Wars trilogy.
8. Commander Mark Polansky took a teddy bear to the moon that was a replica of one owned by a Holocaust survivor.
9. Astronaut Satoshi Furukawa built a Lego replica of the International Space Station while aboard the International Space Station itself.
10. Astronauts trained for walking on the moon in zero gravity by being suspended sideways and walking on a slanted wall.

The post Our Newest Challenge in Space: Privatizing the Delivery and Return of Human Beings appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Bob Dole did everything that he could to get his ninety-five-year-old war-ravaged body once again to the U.S. Capitol, this time to pay a final tribute to his friend and rival, George H.W. Bush. There once was a moment of testiness, in 1988 when both were running for the presidency at Dole said words to the effect that “I wish that he would stop being so mean.” What Dole really meant was that he wished that HW had not hired the likes of Roger Aisles and Lee Atwater to run his opponents into the gutter.

Bush won the presidency and Dole was Senate Minority Leader for those four years. Dole recently reflected upon those years, saying in an interview with CNN, saying that under Bush’s presidency, “three-fourths of Congress were veterans and we would stick together and work across the aisle. And President Bush was a bipartisan president. So, we got quite a lot done,” he said.

It is interesting how thirty years later in 2018, both parties tout how many veterans they have brought into their ranks and who have been elected to Congress. But to characterize today’s Congress as being bi-partisan would be false, even farcical.

Bush and Dole fought in World War II. They were in different theaters; Bush in the Pacific and Dole in Italy. But they had a common goal; to help the United States defeat fascism. Their purpose and the tenacity of their commitment ultimately resulted in victory for the United States, first in Europe in May 1945 and three months later against Japan. This was the group that became known as “The Greatest Generation” and truly had much of which to be proud. For the moment, we’ll overlook their omissions in areas of civil rights, poverty, and health care, but their signature achievement was far greater than that of any generation since. They had a bond without a swagger. There was a high degree of mutual respect, and that carried over into the U.S. Congress where Democrats and Republicans alike were able to work collaboratively, not always, but when necessary. That is a far cry from today.

The sense of pride in achievement that the likes of H.W. Bush and Dole had is missing among the men and women currently in Congress who have served in the military. Beginning with Vietnam, the United States has not had a war in which it can claim “victory” since World War II (with the possible exception of H.W.’s Desert Storm efforts in the Persian Gulf). Nothing could symbolize this difference than the varying military careers of H.W. and his son W. H.W. flew over fifty missions in the Pacific and did far more than his part in the U.S. effort in the Pacific. His son, W., was in the National Guard, but weaseled out of going to Vietnam or in any way placing himself in harm’s way. Current members of Congress who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly put themselves at risk, but they lack the sense of bond that comes from shared victory or purpose. This may well play a key role in the lack of unity in both the current Congress and the body politic at large.

A possible solution might be a new war similar in nature to World War II. But we all know that is not only impossible, it is absurd to make war the basis for building national unity. However, there are at least two things that we can do to try to restore the civility of the era of H.W. and Bob Dole:

First, let’s not get in any wars that are fruitless and not winnable (see Just War Theory). Second, let’s find a non-combative way of rebuilding national unity. How about something that should be as a-political as possible – rebuilding and refashioning our infrastructure. Not too long after World War II, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated with Congress the Interstate Highway System. Now we need something more diverse and comprehensive and forward-looking in nature. In the spirit of H.W. and Bob Dole, Congress could do the initial planning now, and in the post-Trumpian era, it could be implemented. Not a bad way to learn lessons from H.W. and Bob Dole, and to move on.

The post H.W. Bush & Bob Dole fought a “good war” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The House has passed a tax bill that is disproportionately kind to the wealthy; the Senate is about to do the same and then Donald Trump can flash that Cheshire grin again as he signs a document that may sound good to his base, but in reality will not be.

Besides stacking the deck in favor of the likes of himself, the bill also gives him and other Republicans a long-awaited victory in dissembling the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate for health care coverage will essentially be gutted because penalties for non-compliance are eliminated. This means that thirteen million fewer individuals will have health care coverage and premiums will go up for those who still have coverage.

Regrettably, the underlying theme to Republican policies is meanness. Parenthetically, it might be noted that a recent CNN poll shows that Republican Senator is 20% more popular among Democrats than members of his own party (68% – 48%). If only McCain would show the party the same respect that they show to him.

The recent literal train wreck in Washington State gave Trump another opportunity to call next for a robust infrastructure bill. Of course, this comes as his budget cuts infrastructure spending by $55 billion, including a considerable amount for Amtrak. None of this stops Trump from calling for massive upgrades to our roads, bridges, airports, rail system – just about everything except cyber security. Democrats have talked about a real infrastructure bill that would cost on the order of a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, but it be fresh money going into circulation and the multiplier effect of contractors and workers receiving it would mean that each dollar would turn over in the economy up to four times in a year. Much of that would come back in the way of tax revenue.

Trump has also spoken about a trillion dollars for infrastructure, but up to eighty percent of it would be smoke and mirrors. That’s because it would not be actual federal spending. Instead, it would be up to $800 billion in tax breaks to contractors and real estate owners such as himself to “stimulate” infrastructure growth.

This one has difficulty passing the giggle test, because tax breaks for the wealthy do what they are called, they give more money to the wealthy. Without macro plans from the government to fund necessary projects, there will be negligible improvement to the infrastructure. What should be a major public program to improve the lives of the American people is just a further transference of public money into the coffers of the wealthy.

The mysteries of the Republican brain continue to be at the center of dysfunctional policies. There seems to be a lack of empathy, and policy-makers do not mind constructing programs that harm the most vulnerable (one of the seven forbidden words) among us. But even more odd is how the economically deprived in the Republican base have difficulty seeing who is oppressing them. They may scapegoat that it is “liberal values” and a lack of respect for their hard work (not everyone in any “class” is really a hard worker). It’s true that liberal programs have not always been a panacea for those who are designed to help, but the progressive perspective is to try to help and learn from mistakes. Many Republicans are happy to oppress their base if it means more money for the wealthy. That’s the tax bill and a likely infrastructure bill to come.

Democrats must put all the pressure they can on Trump so he seriously negotiates with “Chuck and Nancy” so that something can be salvaged. But that might be expecting too much of a man constructed like Trump.

The post Next: Republican Meanness in an Infrastructure Bill appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been perhaps a generation and a half since America experienced the pain of double-digit inflation. We don’t talk much about inflation these days, because it isn’t happening except in the most minuscule measurements. For years we were told by Republicans that profligate spending by Democrats would put the United States further and further into debt which would mean runaway inflation.

The mantra about preventing inflation has been to raise sufficient revenue to cover budget expenses but to also restrain spending. So what is it that President-elect Donald Trump wants to do?

First, he wants to drastically reduce taxes. Republicans love to point out how fifty-five years ago President John F. Kennedy advocated a slight reduction in taxes in order to put more money in circulation and thus further stimulate the economy. It worked for Kennedy because his tax cuts were minimal. But now Trump wants to drastically reduce taxes on both corporations and on individuals.

There may be merits for reducing corporate taxes, particularly if they bring large sums of monies such as Apple’s $200 billion back to the US from Ireland and other tax havens. But with all business taxes being reduced, it means that the initial impact will be reduced tax revenues for the U.S. government. That leads to more federal borrowing and the likelihood of increased inflation.

On the spending side, Trump wants to create a new economic stimulus through infrastructure construction. This is something that Barack Obama has been trying to do all through his presidency, but except for one moderate jump-start in 2009 following the economic collapse of the final Bush years, Republicans have blocked all attempts by Obama. Why? The most likely reason is because he is Barack Obama and he is a Democrat. But if Donald Trump proposes it to Congress, it will likely pass. This is one of those times when Democrats can be statespersons and support good legislation even though it emanates from a Republican (who borrowed it from a Democrat). The stimulus will likely put people to work and if the projects are not boondoggles, it will improve the condition of our country.

But the final leg of the tripod from Trump will be increased military spending. This is something that Republicans can really glom onto. It’s likely that there will be little consideration to what projects might actually increase American security. Trump and other Republicans think that just the idea of spending more for the military will actually make America safer. In other words, we’re supposed to think that if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars for problematic projects, we will all feel better.

One thing about inflation is that it is class-blind. Unlike unemployment, it equally impacts people of all economic strata. So a word of caution to the Republicans in all branches of government: if you really want to piss off the widest swath of the American public, follow the plan of reducing taxes for the wealthy while dramatically increasing spending, particularly for projects that have minimal marginal return. Higher prices for milk affects some people; not others. Higher prices for luxury cars affects some; not others. Higher prices for rent or home ownership affects virtually everyone.

Democrats will not be able to do much to prevent Republicans for paving the road of inflation. The only way the Republicans might prevent it is by drastically reducing social safety net spending. Trump won the election by capturing the votes of those who are forty-five years of age and older. He should see how much they would like having their Social Security and Medicare gored.

So unless Trump does enough unthinkable things between now and December 19 when the Electoral College “meets,” he will become president. You may need to brace yourself for a ride on the Trumpian Inflation Superhighway.

The post Remember inflation? Let Trumponomics remind you appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It takes a special kind of anger to be a Trump supporter. It’s not just that you might be frustrated with your economic condition or how you see yourself in the mix of a multi-cultural society. There has be something that motivates you to displace whatever anger you have to individuals who have very little to do with how you’re doing.

It’s hard to imagine anyone being a nicer, kinder person than Barack Obama. What he has stood for in his campaigns and his presidency is decency and trying to improve the lot of everyone. Yet Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said upon Obama’s election this his first job was to make Obama a one-term president. Why the vitriol?

If Hillary Clinton was someone who you sat next to on an airplane, you would likely find her to be warm and caring. She would take interest in your life and share her own experiences with you. As a politician and a public official, has she ever supported policies that are motivated by hate? I don’t think so.

Yet Obama and Clinton are among the personal targets of people who are angry about something, but not necessarily what either of them have done. The image I think of is a tornado floating around a town that finds a particular target and relentlessly gloms onto it. Then it won’t leave.

In 1998 when Hillary Clinton introduced the idea of the vast right-wing conspiracy, she got part of it right. That is the mean-spirited conservative activists like McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and others who actually would manipulate situations to do harm to people not like them. What neither she nor most of the rest of us could see at that time was how fertile the ground was for plowing by the architects of the conspiracy. The 1968 supporters of George Wallace and Richard Nixon’s “Silent Majority” were just as open to demonizing politics in 2016 as they ever had been.

It’s not unlike the person who stubs his toe while entering his front door and then kicks his dog out of frustration. The dog is an easy target, but it had nothing to do with why the man was angry. So many Republican voters are angry and don’t know what to do with their strong feelings. When a largely innocent target is identified by others as the cause of their woes, many are quick to jump on the bandwagon to assault largely innocent souls like Obama or Clinton.

If the United States is going to embrace a progressive agenda, as it has done at various times in its history (think both Roosevelts and LBJ), then we have to address what it is that makes so many people like the Trump supporters so angry. That’s the easy part, and Trump in himself may unwittingly do some of the heavy lifting, if he and Congress can enact an infrastructure stimulus and other job-creating projects. But that only gets us halfway there. The tougher part is to learn more and do more about why so many people so readily displace their anger like the man stubbing his toe.

I can only begin to conjecture about this, but I hope that our psychologists, sociologists, and just plain observers of human behavior spend a good portion of the next four years trying to figure out why so many demonize the wrong target.  A good place to start might be with Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas and the role that religion plays in forming political opinions.

The post Why is the anger of Trump supporters so displaced? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the challenges that progressives frequently face is that they like to be sticklers for facts, at least wherever possible. And since a basic tenet of progressive beliefs is that many societal problems can best be solved through pro-active engagement by the federal government, it becomes frustrating when then federal government does not acquit itself well.

In our local community of St. Louis, Missouri, there seem to be three public works projects with considerable federal funding that seem to involve potentially unwise expenditures of those federal bucks. These local projects are often where citizens get to meet the federal government “up close and personal,” so when they are lemons, it can definitely color the confidence that citizens have in the feds to address large-scale problems. Most public works programs start off in the “aggravation lane” because they often cause disruption and inconvenience well before the first presumed benefit of the work ever appears.

Example 1 — Delmar Trolley

A $51 million project (behind schedule) in St. Louis is the Loop Trolley running 2.2 miles from the University City Loop near Washington University to the Missouri History Museum. With a transportation project, a good initial question is “does anyone travel from Point ‘A’ to Point ‘B?’ In the case of the U. City trolley, the answer is that people do indeed convene at either end of the route, but rarely do they traverse the exact route. There will be intermediate stops along the route, but none will be high capacity venues. The trolley is the brainchild of University City entrepreneur Joe Edwards who has committed most of his life to make the area in which he grew up into both a livable and exciting place to live.

A trolley is quaint, clever, and unique. Running along a major corridor, it can be very helpful to a region’s transportation needs, particularly if it has an exclusive right-of-way. But with the U. City trolley, it is designed to go down existing roadway, streets that coincidentally used to be home to streetcars. The tracks were pulled up fifty years ago because the streetcars and automobiles could not conveniently co-exist. At this point, there is no reason to believe that the new trolley will have some new magical feature that will allow automobiles to comfortably move, especially since this route has always been nothing but stop and go.

Over the course of the two years of construction, once vital businesses have bitten the dust because construction made it difficult for consumers to get to entry points. The bottom line seems to be that this idea may have been considered an asset to gentrification of an area that was struggling to rebound, but collateral damage has already been significant and it’s unlikely that when completed it will come close to meeting its intended goal. This will not look good for either the local governments or the federal government.

Example 2 — Kiener Plaza

A second project is revamping downtown’s Kiener Plaza. The $19 million project is designed to “better connect to downtown’s urban fabric, be flexible for events year-round, and offer new urban park amenities.” The problem is that the current plaza does exactly that. The photos below show how it was effectively used in 2011 in the Occupy St. Louis movement.

It was a great town hall place with an amphitheater where citizens could gather to take on issues of the day. It might have been mistaken for downtown Athens 2,500 years ago. It had a vibrancy that is lacking in most of St. Louis. But now it is demolished. It is being replaced by a “water garden,” which indeed will be nice for families, particularly children. The problem is that such a park already exists only a block away. Because the new plaza will have streaming water, it will not be a venue where citizens can gather to engage in public dialogue. Why is this $19 million being spent? There are no clear answers. What seems most likely is that local officials want to extinguish public protest downtown and they are being aided in their efforts by federal dollars.

Example 3 — Forest Park Parkway at Kingshighway

Finally, there is the surprising news that within a few weeks, work will begin on eliminating the Forest Park Parkway underground viaduct beneath Kingshighway and replacing it with a new “at-grade” crossing. Proponents say that it will improve traffic flow and make the intersection more pedestrian friendly. But how can traffic at an intersection move more smoothly than it does when one street goes under and the other street goes over? And how will pedestrians benefit from a thoroughfare through a park? There must be some answer, and it probably has something to do with the main property owners in the area, Barnes-Jewish Hospitals and Washington University Medical Schools. Their reasoning may be even sound, although not yet publicly disclosed. But the project is going to take a year of work and inconvenience. It doesn’t look good for either the city or the federal government.

I recently completed a two-week trip around America on Amtrak. All of the federal employees were extremely friendly and helpful. That speaks well for the federal government. But questionable local decisions with federal complicity do not engender faith in the federal government. I think that it would behoove progressives to work to ensure that federal monies are neither wasted at the local level nor become an enabling factor for the kind of frustration that construction projects often bring. Call these projects what you will, but they’re all pork. Some pork is better than others and we need to be more discerning.

The post How the federal government may not be serving St. Louis well appeared first on Occasional Planet.