H O W A R D S B E N D

Every four  years, we hear the Republican presidential candidate promise to make America great again and to restore America’s respect around the world. Every four years, the Democratic presidential candidate promises to restore the opportunities for the middle class and to improve the quality of life for all Americans. These vague campaign promises are re-hashed rhetorical pledges from previous campaigns and only present to the voting public an abstract view of what goals and policies the new president might enact.  We are left to speculate on a greater America or on an America with more equal opportunities.

This year the campaign ideas and promises of one candidate are presented in a concrete vivid image presented on the magnificent technicolor wide-screen at your local movie theater.  Coincidently or not so coincidently, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders have a similar vision for America and Michael Moore’s latest movie “Where to Invade Next” happens to hit the wide-screen as Bernie travels America promoting his vision for America during this current presidential campaign season.

Bernie talks of free tuition for public universities as a right for all Americans.  Moore takes his film crew to Slovenia and them Germany demonstrating that free college is a right in many European countries.  Kids go to college and university in these countries without accumulating the tens of thousands of dollars of debt needed to complete a degree at an American college.  These European universities are beautiful, well-staffed with highly qualified professors and filled with students receiving a top-notch college education.

Bernie talks of raising the minimum wage and treating workers more fairly.  Moore takes us to two European factories, one in Italy and one in Norway, where we see workers in comfortable factory settings getting two hour lunch breaks and receiving anywhere from six to eight weeks of paid vacation not including time for maternity  leave or time for personal leave including time at magnificent spas located in a beautiful countryside for mental health recovery all paid for by the government.  We meet the factory owners who claim that their workers’ well-being is as important to them as bottom line earnings.

Moore again takes us to Italy to see how removing the criminality of drug use and offering well funded government  drug rehabilitation has almost eliminated drug crimes and has led to a country in which drug usage has in fact dropped significantly.  Of course, the incarceration rate in that country is well below the rate of incarceration in our own country.  Moore then takes us on a tour of the Norwegian prisons where we see inmates treated as human beings and working to re-integrate back into society.  This re-integration includes education programs, job training and a level of independence all needed for their return to society.  Of course it is no surprise, but the rate of return to  prison for these prisoners is a fraction of this same rate here in the US.

Moore does not touch on universal healthcare in this movie, but it only takes a minute to find “Sicko” to see the benefits to individuals getting free access to healthcare and to see how the costs of providing healthcare to all have lowered the per capital spending on healthcare for the country as a whole.

Many pundits argue that Bernie’s programs are unrealistic and way too expensive for our society to afford.  We hear that Bernie is a “dreamer” but lacks the the specifics for his programs. We hear roar Bernie’s promises will cost trillions of dollars and bankrupt the country.  Well, I say, go see Michael Moore’s new movie and see Bernie’s vision for America brought to you in beautiful technicolor on a wide screen at you neighborhood theater.

For the past year, I have felt like John the Baptist preaching to anyone who would listen that we are in the “Age of the Great One”, the “Mesiah is Amongst Us”. I would coerce friends to watch Steph Curry perform his magic and mystical powers on the basketball court.  People were dumbfounded by this one person’s ability to glide around the court evading opponents’ vain attempts at defense and surreally lofting this round object effortlessy great distances into a round object only slightly larger than the diameter of the ball itself.  People instantly become believers.

This past weekend, I made the pilgramage to the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia to witness first-hand the miracles of this basketball saint.  The Center which lately is only half-full due to the persistent mediocre performance of the home team was full to capacity and buzzing with activity an hour before game time.  Fans came early just to watch Curry warm-up.  Almost all the kids under the age of 15 are wearing number 30 Golden State jerseys following their Pied Piper as he leads his team to the promised land.

A few nights later, the Golden State Warriors are on ESPN playing the Washington Wizards.  Curry was having one of those indescribable nights, where he made 8 of 9 three-point shots in the first quarter and when he wasn’t shooting the long range jumper from anywhere, he was making behind-the-back passes or stealing the ball from his opponents.  He finished the night with 44 points and sat out almost the entire forth quarter.  But, what was truly amazing was hearing the three sportscasters, who have been around the professional game for about 120 years collectively, go on and on about how Curry is the best shooter in the history of basketball and possibly the most entertaining person ever to play the game.  They ask how is it possible that the  MVP player from last season can win the Most Improved Player this year.

So why is Curry bad for the game of basketball?  The problem is that he makes the rest of the NBA look like an over 55 league at the YMCA.  The play around the NBA is slow, predictable and uninspiring.  Kobe, a former superstar looks old and tired.  King James looks stiff and clumsy.  Westbrook and Durant look too human as they miss key shots in big moments and Rose looks hobbled coming back from his knee surgery.

So how does an avid fan and sports junky like myself deal with the disparity between Steph Curry and the rest of the league.  It is very hard.  It is no fun tuning in to a mid-week came between Sacramento Kings and the Jazz or the Sixers and the Timberwolves waiting the entire game for one outstanding play. Curry promises a highlight clip every minute.  I change the channel looking for a good college game or flipping on the Flyers for two seconds.  The Australian Open was a pleasant diversion an now I only watch the NBA when Golden State Warriors are being televised.

It would ironic if league attendance and viewership suffered because of a player that is just too good that he makes the rest of the league look mediocre.  Can the NBA televise a Warriors’ games three or four times a week, or do we just need a Steph Curry app which gives you all the highlights from the previous Warriors’ game that you can re-play whenever you need a fix f good basketball.  I guess the NHL survived with Gretzky and the NFL survived with Montana , so I guess the NBA can survive with Curry.

For the past several years, the world has been plagued with two major crises in the Middle East.  The first crisis is the surge in refugees fleeing Syria.  The problem had its beginnings a few years ago when Assad began the wholesale killing and torturing of his own people.  People initially began to flee to neighboring Middle East states and as the problem grew many refugees are making their way into European countries.  The second problem the world faces is the emergence and growing power of ISIS.  As ISIS has moved from Iraq into Syria, it has further aggravated the refugee problem as more and more people flee the area to escape getting caught in the crossfire between Assad’s forces and the attacking ISIS army.

I am going to deal with the second problem first, the growing strength of the ISIS forces.  Here in the United States, we are frustrated that both the Iraqi Army and the Syrian freedom fighters lack the will to take on ISIS.  We have seen the Iraqi Army melt away as they are confronted with a smaller and less equipped ISIS army.  We asked ourselves why these Iraqi forces cannot mount a concerted offensive against the forces of ISIS.  We are inclined to contrast this failure with the success that our Founding Fathers had against a much larger and formidable English army.  This same frustration is aimed at the small bands of Syrian freedom fighters who are battling ISIS in Syria.

But the comparison to the American Revolution is misguided.  The media asks why are these armies so unsuccessful in fighting the evil force that threatens their country.  We expect the Iraqi army to carry the fervor of the American patriots when in fact, they are fighting one evil only knowing too well that they will be returning home to a war ravaged country that is in the midst on an non-ending civil war.  Is it worth dying for a country that is filled with corruption and where life is threatened by daily sectarian bombings?  Or, are we expecting more recruits to join the independent Syrian forces to battle ISIS knowing that one day they must return to fight the battle with Assad and his tyrannical forces?

It is accepted opinion that  ISIS will only be defeated with a coordinated effort between ground troops and supporting military airstrikes.  ISIS is well entrenched in several metropolitan areas and we need ground forces going door-to-door to defeat this menace.

How about if we asked these refugees to join a fight for a better life for them and their families?  How motivated would these fighters be if they knew that a home, a community peace and prosperity would be a real option for them and their families?  I am proposing the United States agrees to accept up to 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees and their families with the stipulation that they must join the United States Army for a three year stint and be required to fight the terrorist group ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The recruits’  families will be given asylum in the US and be provided a home, schooling and health services immediately.  After the soldier completes his or her three year service, both they and their family are awarded citizenship in the United States.

We would have an army on the ground fighting ISIS, composed largely of Syrian refugees, fighting in a country that they know well and understand  using the most advanced military equipment, employing sophisticated military strategy and backed  by U.S. air power.  We give our military leaders the full arsenal they need to defeat ISIS.   We can continue this battle against ISIS bringing in a second 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees to America until ISIS is clearly defeated anywhere they exist in the world.

I believe that the new refugees and future citizens who have just defeated the “existential threat” to our country will immediately earn the respect of their fellow country men and will be welcomed with much more open arms.  The is a policy that should be popular with both Democrats and Republicans and the required  legislation should pass easily n Washington D.C.  It is a strategy that allows us deal with the mounting refugee problem while dealing with the growing threat of ISIS.

We can already hear the drumbeats to the 2016 Presidential election and if we cannot hear them, at least MSNBC has its ears to the ground and reports relentlessly on all the major breaking stories on this election just under three years away.  MSNBC has already anointed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic front-runner for the next presidential election.  I think that most of us have to agree with this pre-campaign choice.

However, when I examine my feelings about Hillary, I am less than enthusiastic.  Yes, of course, I recognize the the historical significance of having our first woman president and I do not want to diminish or tarnish that event.  This event is long overdue in American politics.  But, I would like to get behind this first woman president because I strongly believe in her policies and applaud her political achievements.  I want to believe that she is the best possible candidate for the position and would lead the country with the values and policies that I can applaud.

I believe that Hillary Clinton was a good Senator but not an outstanding Senator as she was too focused on political concerns and often went with the majority as opposed to leading the charge on more controversial or more philosophical positions.  So Hillary worked to bring new businesses to New York during her first term.  She worked to bring forth legislation that would assure equal pay for equal work.  She worked to get dollars to re-build New York City after 9/11 and to get funds to help the first responders, but she voted to go to war in both Afghanistan and then Iraq giving Bush unlimited war powers.  We know this vote on Iraq might have cost her the 2008 presidential nomination.  Hillary voted in favor of the Patriot Act and then again for its renewal.  It was only in 2007, maybe looking forward to the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, when Hillary started calling for the troops to come home from Iraq.

But my biggest concern with Ms. Clinton was her record as Secretary of State.  I cannot think of an State Department initiative that improved the US relations with any of those countries where tensions exist between the US and a foreign nation.  The relationships with Iran, North Korea and Syria deteriorated during her tenure.  Relations with Russia or China remained cool and no progress was made at all working toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians and tensions continued throughout the rest of the Middle East.  We only have to look at John Kerry’s first year as Secretary of State to see a more active and results-oriented foreign policy.

This leads to the question of who else might be a viable Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 and surprisingly, the Democratic Party does not have a dynamic, articulate progressively thinking individual with national recognition.  There is a total void of viable candidates after Clinton.  I like Ron Wyden, but feel he would get demolished by the Republicans in a national campaign.  Neither Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein have made it to the national stage and my favorite Ed Rendell has faded into oblivion after leaving his governorship.  Please V.P. Biden, spare us the embarrassment of a presidential campaign.

This all leaves us Hillary by default.  During the next couple of years, Clinton can play it safe by hiding in obscurity as she is safely out of the limelight.  However, if she is running for president, then I would like to see her come out of the shadows and lead the Democratic Party starting now.  This means going public and urging her party to extend unemployment benefits to the “99ers”.  This means calling for the re-instatement of Head Start and food programs for poor child.    This means fighting for the reduced Defense budget.  This means being an ambassador and force for change now.  I really do not want Hillary be default, I would like to get Hillary by demand.

Dear Howard –

Guess whose birthday is rapidly approaching?  No not Sasha’s…no not Maliya’s either. That’s right, Barack’s big day is this week.  Can you believe that this absolutely wonderful man, great husband, loving dad and adequate president is turning 51 this week?

And, what do I get for a man who has everything in the world…….including power, fame, a standing army, a 747 at his disposal etc.  Somehow a new tie or CD or new wallet seems a little lame.

Therefore, I thought I would raise $300 million for his re-election campaign.  This would be such a welcome birthday gift for Barack. It would free him up from having to run from speaking to a Jewish organization one night to raise a few million dollars to then jumping on a plane to fly to the Mid-West to speak before a large labor union the next night for a few more million before jumping on another plane only to fly out to the West Coast to have dinner with George Clooney and a few friends for a few more million.  Barack would love not to have to go back to Wall Street and make all kinds of promises to weaken Dodd-Frank to get the Street’s financial backing for this political campaign.  And think of all the time to actually make foreign and domestic policy freed from the time constraints of raising campaign funds.

So I am asking each of Barack’s 100 million supporter to give $3 each for his re-election campaign.  This would be the best birthday gift for any president running for re-election.  Please help me make this a birthday Barack will not forget.

Michelle

P.S. Please keep this quiet as I do not want to spoil the surprise.

I am watching the seventh game of the World Series this past Friday and my wife comes in early in the game and asks who am I rooting for.  Being a pretty typical American sports fan I usually root for the under-dog or the under-dogish type team.  “I guess that I am rooting for Texas as I feel bad that they have never won a World Series and St Louis has 10 World Championships.”

“What!!!! How can you root for Texas? ”  I thought that I was about to get a lecture about the superior managing ability of Tony Larussa versus the abilities of Ron Washington at a critical moment in the game.  I thought it was going to be pointed out that the Cards can score without getting the ball out of the infield.  Maybe I would hear the praise of the Cards pitching staff over their opponents.  Could be as simple as the color of the uniforms?

“I am not sure that I could root for Texas,” she says. “Didn’t Texas give us George W Bush?  Isn’t Rick Perry from Texas.  Isn’t Texas one of the states lowest in educational performance of its students.  Doesn’t Texas rank lowest or near the bottom in healthcare and air quality?    I would like to see the Cards “execute” the Texas rangers one player at a time.  Didn’t  Texas consider seceding from the country?  Maybe the Rangers can secede from Major League Baseball.

Touche’.

In this country there is separation of church and state.  However, there is no separation of sports and state.  Congratulations Cards.  I was there for you from the middle of the seventh game on.

Today we learned that 13 Americans were among the 20 NATO soldiers killed in a car bomb attack today in Afghanistan.  I sit here and sadly shake my head wondering what it will take to end this lunacy.

President Obama rode to the White House as the only major candidate that had the foresight in 2002 to oppose an invasion of Iraq anticipating the dire consequences which would follow.  This is the President that is touring the country proudly proclaiming that he is ending the war in Iraq – a process which was ironically and irrevocably set in motion in 2008 just before George Bush left office.  This is the same President that has “doubled-down” in Afghanistan twice bringing our troop level from about 30,000 in 2008 to about 100,000 troops there today.  This is the President that is committing the same mistakes that were committed both in Viet Nam and then again in Iraq.  This is the President that cannot stand-up to the military and say “enough is enough.”

It is time to end this war and bring our troops home.  This is the war that is still resulting in hundreds of deaths a year.  This is the war that is costing the country of $100 billion a year.  This is the war that is grossly feeding hundreds of military contractors and suppliers.

The general feeling is that the OWS movement needs a defined agenda.  Ending the war and bringing our troops home is a very simple message with a simple stated goal.  Maybe the OWS can adopt this simple message.  Let’s end the war and allocate the hundreds of billions to our schools, job creation at home and helping those in need.  Let’s really “support our troops” and bring them home.

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement had a very good week.  Their brand recognition is growing.  TV ratings are soaring as updates are now carried during prime-time.  OWS has also opened many new oversee markets culminating with protests across the globe this past Saturday.

As word of the movement spreads, there is a growing number of strong sympathizers and people wanting to get involved who are just not going to grap their sleeping bags, camping gear and  tents to join the ranks occupying some downtown square or plaza.  It is time to give these non-protesting supporters a realistic action plan that does not require them to give up a good home-cooked dinner.

The banks and the investment banks have become the initial target of “corporate greed”.   Why banks?  From about 2002 through 2008, the banks and investment banks had collectively issued or bought millions of the bad “subprime” mortgages  and then packaged these loans and sold them to our pension funds, insurance companies and small local banks.  During this period, these large banks earned billions in profits.  However, when the market for this product collapsed and these banks were caught with hundreds of billions of these loans in their collective portfolios, they relied on the governement for close to a trillion dollar bailout.  Of course, these bankers paid themselves billions of dollars in bonuses despite huge corportate losses.

Ironically, as these banks have returned to profitability, they are now foreclosing on mortgage holders at record paces.   Many of these deliquent mortgages are probably the same mortgages that the banks and investment banks were holding during the government bailout.  These banks are mercessly kicking people out of their homes forgetting that they would no longer be in business if not for the governemnt bailout.

So it is very logical that the banks should be the first target of any movement attacking corporate greed.  Below are some steps that non-protesting supporters of OWS may begin to take

1. Move saving and checking accounts to small local banks.  This is something that Arianna Huffinton tried to promote recently and it is time to encourage people to move funds from the mega banks located on Wall Street to your local credit union or small bank. This will deny these big banks the capital necessary to make the next round of unsafe investments with our funds.

2.Stop using your credit card.  The big banks which fund most of these credit cards earn about 2% for each credit card transaction.  This is a very lucrative profit center for the banks.  Carry cash and when you pay with the cashier say something like,”I support OWS.”  This little verbal announcement will alert the cashier of a growing movement and if you say it loud enough maybe the two people behing you in line will also get the message.

3. Pay down your credit card debt.  Banks earn huge profits on credit card debt.  They charge the borrower about 18% to 25% of the credit card balance while banks can borrow from the Fed or use our deposits and pay 1% to 2% for the use of these funds.  This is an outrageous profit margin and large part of a bank’s total earning.  In 2004 (the last year I could find), banks earned $30 billion from their credit card business which explains the continuous stream of credit card solicitations.

4. Conserve oil and gas.  This may seem off track but investment banks have invested billions of dollars in oil futures.  They are betting that the price of a barrel of crude oil will skyrocket with widespread disruptions in the Middle East.  It is estimated that about $30 of the $85 price of a barrel of oil can be attributed to this activity.  A sudden glut of oil would cause the price to plummet creating huge losses for these Wall Street speculators.

These initial action steps might seem too simplistic to combat the greed of Wall Street.  However, these steps allow sympathizers to get involved without taking to the streets.  These steps do not really  make a difference  if only ten people stop using a credit card or pay down their credit card debt.  These action steps only have an impact if ten million people stop using credit cards.

Please spread the word and please offer any suggestions that you think might be challenge the greed of these large banks on Wall Street.

For the past few weeks, I was annoyed that the “main-stream media” was ignoring a growing grass-root movement that was directly challenging both established politics and social and economic hierarchies.  Was the “Occupy Wall Street” movement too threatening to the establishment? Perhaps it would stoke the fires of revolution burning inside an alienated and struggling growing number of people, disillusioned with the current state of affairs.  Has the Arab Spring morphed in our country to Fall of Wall Street?

I had to find out for myself why coverage of this spreading revolution could only be found on “leftist” media outlets.  So this past Sunday, I ventured to Zuccotti Square in the middle of the Wall Street area to see first-hand what was transpiring.  Quite honestly, I do not believe that I witnessed the early phases of  populist movement that had the potential to inspire more and more people to join their cause.  I do not believe that I saw a viable force that could challenge the way that our large corporations peddle their influence over the politicians with their large and and secretive campaign contributions.  I did not see a power base that would be able to stand up to the “barons” of Wall Street and demand the same kind of financial relief for its defaulting mortgage customers that was given to bail them out of their financial calamity.

What I did see in the  “Occupy Wall Street” movement is a collection of warm and sincere individuals that proudly although quietly condemn the profit motive blinds corporate America.  This group of about 500 protesters enjoys the comfort of a community with shared beliefs.   They politely remind onlookers and any passerby that there is lack of moral and humane values demonstrated by our large corporations. However, there is an overriding sense that these individuals are misplaced in a modern technological world.  These are the “hippies” from  Haight Ashbury who have kept the cause alive for 50 years later.  They are joined by another group of people mostly in their early 20s that are reminiscent of these “hippies” in their youth.  Together, they have created a cozy and very democratic environment where they collectively can chant their disappointments and frustrations with our current state of affairs.

However, this revolution is not ready for prime-time.  The group of citizens gathered on Wall Street with their political and social gripes do not really inspire.  Their demands are vague and their solutions are lacking.  I now believe that this movement was passed over by main-stream media because it was not that interesting of a story.  These protests are not unusual and not that interesting.  The feeling is that the movement will end once the cold weather descends on Wall Street and that business will continue as usual.  The media has avoided this story because the movement feels like an old re-run and not a new and exciting story ready for prime-time.

Quite honestly, I do not like Rick Perry and have no faith or belief in any of his prayers or proposals to solve our nation’s problems.  However, I do believe that he was correct when he stated that “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.”

The world, represented by the media, reacted with shock and horror at such an outrageous claim.  His fellow Republicans seized the opportunity to attack the perpetrator of this comment as an evil man who would deny our retired senior citizens their just rewards after many decades of hard work while contributing religiously to their retirement fund through their social security payroll deductions.  The Democrats sneered among themselves that the number one Republican candidate for 2012 just shot himself in the foot.  The Democrats are the absolute defenders of the Social Security system while Republicans want to deny retirees their well-earned retirement benefits.

However, most of us know that there is no Social Security Trust Fund that contains real money.  This Trust Fund is filled with a collection of government IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds.  This situation is the same as a private company that takes out retirement funds from its employees’ paychecks and forms a trust fund that invests the dollars back into the same company.  The expectation of receiving one’s retirement is directly tied to the economic performance of the company in which these funds were invested.

The situation is the same with Social Security except our funds are being invested in the US government and our ability to receive our retirement benefits is totally dependent on the future credit and good standing of the US government.  The government which is running approximately a $1.3 trillion annual deficit must continue to borrow to pay all its obligations including Social Security payments.  It seemed absurd until about six months ago that the good credit standing of the US government would every be in jeopardy.  We have gone through two fiscal crisis in the past six months where a government shutdown threatened to send the US into default on its debt obligations.  Under a default scenario and the inability to continue to borrow to meet its shortfalls, the federal government would have to pick and choose which obligations it would continue to fund.  Social Security payments would have definitely been on the “cutting board.”  The Republicans again this week are again holding the federal government hostage for an additional $3 billion payment to FEMA refusing to give the government additional funds without offsetting cuts in the federal budget.  Again the government shutdown is a possibility and again Social Security payments are threatened.

Even if the government averts this immediate crisis and the next twenty crises  , the Democrats have made it known, in an effort to deal with the longer term mounting federal debt,  that they will be willing to make changes to the Social Security payments.  Therefore, the social contract that we believe that we agreed to when we started having funds withdrawn from our paychecks many years ago will be changed.  We are now being told to expect to work more years and get less annual benefits for this additional work.  It is like buying an annuity that promised to pay 5% beginning in year ten and instead being told that this annuity will pay 3.5% beginning in the 15th year, maybe.  This sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.