Category: Uncategorized

WAR ON WOMEN

Those who believe that there is war on women are absolutely correct. There is a war on women. It is widespread, all-encompassing and relentless. In many cases, it begins before the woman is even born and continues her entire life. However, this war is not being fought in the US against American women, but, rather, against women in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and virtually every other country EXCEPT the US. Women, if you think are discriminated against in America, read on. See how it is in the rest of the world. I have selected a couple of the more egregious examples.

1. China –

a. Infanticide has always been practiced in certain parts of the world, most prevalently in backward or poor areas, for various reasons. In China, however, female infants and even fetuses, have accounted for a disproportionate number of the deaths. Chinese officials refuse to acknowledge that this practice still exists, and they deny any correlation with the country’s “one-child policy,” but statistics don’t lie. Since 2005 there have been a significant excess of male births compared to females (over 1 million), and it is estimated that males under 20 now outnumber females under 20 by 32 million. We all know that the male-female birth odds are virtually 50%, so the only logical conclusion for this sizeable difference is female infanticide and/or abortions. Recently, while vacationing in China I was told that even though the “one-child policy” provides some exceptions, many couples are reluctant to have more than one child for economic reasons. Furthermore, even though disclosing the gender of the fetus before birth is supposed to be prohibited, many couples manage to find out anyway. This provides further incentives for the infanticide of females fetuses and infants.

b. It is well-documented that the female sex trade is rampant throughout Asia (and in many other third-world countries as well). In China the practice of families selling their female children to sex traffickers is not uncommon, particularly in rural and poorer areas. In addition, young girls are often kidnapped from their homes and sold to sex traffickers. In recent years sex trafficking and prostitution have become more prevalent and more visible as well.

c. Women have virtually no meaningful representation as political leaders. No woman has ever become a member of the Politburo, and, according to the latest information available, there are only three female government ministers out of 27.

d. In some of the poorer areas of the country polygamy has been gaining in popularity. In my opinion, this re-enforces the notion of viewing women as property, which is a notion right out of the Middle Ages.

2. Women in Muslim Countries

a. Virtually every aspect of a woman’s life is governed by Islamic laws and cultural customs. This includes, but is not limited to, education, employment, sex crimes, marriage and legal standing.

b. Education opportunities are severely restricted. According to a study by the World Economic Forum in 2012, 17 of the 18 nations with the largest education gender gap were Muslim.

c. Islamic law permits polygamy. Additionally, in some countries, such as Iran, Muslim men are also allowed to enter into “temporary” marriages.

d. Women’s legal rights are inferior to that of men. For example, a women’s right to inherit property is secondary to that of a male sibling. Furthermore, in cases of rape a woman is required to find four male witnesses to support her claim (unless the rapist has confessed). Otherwise, she could be convicted of a false accusation, which is a crime in and of itself punishable by flogging. We all know about the custom of “honor” killings.

e. Generally, employment opportunities are no where nearly equal to those of men. Women require their husband’s approval to work at all. In addition, they are expected to give first preference to caring for their home and family, rather than their job. The notion of a fulfilling career is virtually non-existent.

f. Women are expected to dress “modestly” in public. In most cases, that means covering their extremities and wearing a burqa.

g. Abortion is banned in every country in which Islam is the state religion, except for Tunisia. In addition, most Muslim nations forbid birth control, and contraceptives are often not even available.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

I could have cited many other countries, but I believe I have made my point.

There is no doubt that, in some instances, American women have been and still are treated in an inferior manner compared to men. But, the gender gap has been closing rapidly, particularly in employment, education, politics and legal rights to name a few. We may even have a female president in two years.

Consider, a generation or two ago few married women worked outside the home. Married women were expected to stay home, care for the house and raise the children. If a wife had a job it was assumed that the husband was unable to support her. Divorce was rare and an anathema. If you were divorced you were considered a failure. The mantra was “find a good husband who could support you.” Men were blatantly afforded preference over women in the job market. I still remember one of my high school teachers admonishing a college-bound female classmate that she would be majoring in “Mrs.”

Women did not play organized sports. They were considered to be too strenuous. They played half court basketball. Marathons and other long distance races were another “no-no.” There were no college athletic scholarships or varsity teams, much less professional leagues.

There were few female doctors, lawyers, financial gurus, scientists or opportunities for other lucrative careers. For the most part, the career opportunities for a female college graduate were limited to becoming a teacher, nurse or secretary.

So, when some women characterize every minor inconvenience or impediment in their lives as a major affront and claim there is a “war on women,” my advice is get some perspective. But for the grace of god, you could have been born 50 years ago or in present-day China, Saudi Arabia, Africa, Eastern Europe, etal.

by Tags: 1 Comment

THE COWARDS OF EUROPE

President Obama has been coming under much criticism for his weak response to Russia’s aggression in the Crimea. I agree that his response has been weak. There are many additional sanctions he could have imposed on Russia, for example, various trade sanctions or currency sanctions. His ineffectual, if not laughable, response so far is, however, consistent with his strategy with respect to the recent situations with Iran and Syria. Rather than taking decisive action, he has preferred to build a consensus of allies and lead from behind. That said, the main theme of this blog is not President Obama, but rather the cowardly response of our European allies so far.

Consider:

1. Germany has the most powerful economy in Europe. Its Chancellor, Angela Merkle, is, according to “Forbes,” one of the most powerful persons in the word (ranked #2 behind the Pope in 2012 and #5 in 2013). As a leader, she has been compared to both Margaret Thatcher, probably the strongest female leader of the 20th Century, and Otto von Bismarck the greatest German Chancellor ever. Indeed, she has been nicknamed the “Iron Frau” and the “Iron Chancellor.” She is the most influential person and the de facto head of the EU. Germany is a strong trade partner of Russia’s. But, has she weighed in on the Crimea situation? Has she backed any meaningful trade or currency sanctions? Noooo! Why not? Could it possibly be because Russia is a big supplier of natural gas to Germany?

2. David Cameron, the PM of the UK, is another coward. To paraphrase Lloyd Benson, he is no Margaret Thatcher. One of Ms. Thatcher’s many shining moments was her classic response to Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982. Rather than getting bogged down in “wishy-washy” negotiations or diplomatic “protests,” she simply sent a fleet to the area to retake the Islands. No leading from behind for her. Just like that; “easy-peasy,” the problem was resolved. In addition, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and President George H. W. Bush was hesitant about taking action, it was Ms. Thatcher who counseled “Don’t get all wobbly on me now, George.” In this instance, what has Mr. Cameron done? Nothing. Why not? Most likely, he is afraid of damaging the UK’s strong trading ties with Russia.

3. As far as France is concerned, the less said the better. The French think they are superior to everyone else. They look down their noses at the rest of the world. The truth is the French are an inconsequential power both militarily and economically. They only won WWI and WWII because they were allied with the US and England. They have not won a war on their own since the time of Charlemagne. Their socialist-style economy is choking the country. Nevertheless, their silence has also been deafening.

4. The other countries with a stake in this situation, e.g. Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltics, are concerned, but they are too weak to do anything meaningful.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Does anyone really think that Russia will be satisfied with just the Crimea, especially given the world’s weak and ineffectual response? If you do, you are both delusional and devoid of any knowledge of world history. Appeasing aggressors, like Putin, has never worked, EVER. It only encourages them. For example, are you cognizant of the Munich Agreement in 1938? Hitler had just seized the Sudetenland. He convinced the Allies that that was all he wanted. He was now satisfied. The Allies bought it due to either fear or delusion. Remember the famous scene of Neville Chamberlain waiving the treaty proclaiming “Peace in our time?” We all know how that worked out.

The cowards of Europe are not thinking globally. They are more interested in their own internal situations. They figure that their economies need the continued trade with Russia. They hope and expect that the US will handle the situation, both economically and, if necessary, militarily as it has done for the past 70 years. Well, I say “Don’t count on it.” Not with this President, and not with the growing isolationist attitude among the American people.

Meanwhile, the other bad boys of the world, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China, are watching.

by Tags: 2 Comments

FAVORITE MOVIES

What are your favorite movies? I don’t mean the “best” movies as ranked by “experts.” Nor do I mean the highest grossers (if that is even a word). I mean, which movies did you enjoy the most. Everyone has his or her own list. Some people favor critically acclaimed movies; others favor ones that tell a story or are well acted. I prefer ones that entertain me. I also gravitate toward ones with big stars. I’m the reason why certain actors get paid $20 million or more for a picture. In any event, below, in alphabetical order, is my list of favorite movies. I listed them in alphabetical order because it was too difficult to rank them. You may not agree, but to paraphrase Lesley Gore “Its my blog, and I can do what I want to.”

“A League of Their Own” (1992) – “There’s no crying in baseball.”

“Casablanca” (1942) – Many oft-quoted lines, but Bogie never said “Play it again Sam.”

“Crash” (2004) – Debunked stereotypes. No one is what they seem to be.

“Godfather” (1972) – I had to include this one. Someone made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.

“Godfather 2” (1974) – One of the best sequels.

“Gone with the Wind” (1939) – The first “spectacular.”

“High Noon” (1952) – In the gunfight, Coop is actually shown reloading.

“Hoosiers” (1986) – A “feel-good” story; well done.

“Jaws” 1975 – Made many kids scared of the water. Put Spielberg on the map.

“Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) – An all-star cast.

“Psycho” (1960) – Who can forget the shower scene?

“Raiders of the Lost Arc” (1981) – Wouldn’t let my son see it because of the gruesome ending.

“Rocky” (1976) – The ultimate “feel-good” story. Stunning fight scenes.

“Schindler’s List” (1993) – Powerful story. Superb acting.

“School Ties” (1992) – Anti-Semitism in the early 1950s. An early view of Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Brendan Frazier and Chris O’Donnell.

“Shawshank Redemption” (1994) – Redemption and revenge.

“Star Wars” (1977) – Perhaps, not the best of the series but the one with the most impact.

“Terminator 2 Judgment Day” (1991) – “Hasta la vista, baby.”

“The Birds” (1963) – Hitchcock at his best. Stunning ending; no one left the theatre as the credits rolled.

“The 10 Commandments” (1956) – Who can forget the parting of the Red Sea.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

That’s my list. I’m sure I omitted some excellent movies, but I thought 20 was enough. I’m sure there will debate over some of my choices, but that’s the fun of it.

What’s your list. I’d like to know.

by Tags: 8 Comments

MANDELA AND APARTHEID

My recent vacation included approximately two weeks in South Africa, and one of the things I learned was that the stories of Nelson Mandela and Apartheid are entwined to the extent that one cannot discuss one without the other. Most South Africans view Nelson Mandela as a cross between George Washington, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Most of us have some familiarity with Mandela’s life – anti-Apartheid activist, political prisoner, first black prime minister, architect of the dismantling of Apartheid. But, what of his early life? How did he come to be the leader of the anti-Apartheid forces? How did he come to be so revered?

First, it is necessary to understand what Apartheid was and how people existed under its laws. There had always been some degree of racial segregation in SA all the way back to Dutch colonial times. The white Dutch colonists, much like whites in other parts of the world, including America, had always viewed non-whites as inferior. In 1948, however, this attitude was taken to a new level. The National Party, which was dominated by hardliners, narrowly gained control of the government, and as the ruling party, it began legislating and enforcing the Apartheid laws with which we are all familiar.

The word “Apartheid” literally means “the state of being apart,” or “apart-hood,” in Afrikaans. Under its laws, people were classified into four separate groups according to an elaborate and arbitrary set of criteria: “white,” “black,” “colored,” and other mixed people, such as Asians and Indians. In addition, some of the groups had several subcategories to refine the separation further. Every aspect of life was strictly segregated: housing, schools, beaches, jobs, medical care. You name it. Millions of people were uprooted from their homes and forcefully relocated to the “appropriate” residential area. It was not unusual for family members to be classified differently. Thus, they would be forced to live, work and exist apart from each other. Women were discriminated against both racially and gender-wise. Asian groups were treated differently. For example, Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans were classified as “honorary whites,” whereas other Asians, such as Chinese and Indonesians, were classified as “colored.” People classified as “blacks” and or “colored” were subjected to curfews with strict penalties for violations, including arrest and imprisonment.

From what I could gather from first-hand accounts of people who actually lived through this period, it was the most demeaning, depressing, and emasculating situation one could imagine. It took the US “Jim Crow” laws to a new level. This way of life was what Mandela was largely responsible for ending, and that is why he so revered in SA today.

Nelson Mandela was born Rolihlahia Mandela on July 18, 1918 in Transkei, SA. One might say that his name was a portent for his life as it meant “pulling the branch of a tree” or, more commonly, “troublemaker.” After his father died when he was nine Nelson was adopted by a local chieftain and was given the same status and opportunities as if he were the chieftain’s own son. This became extremely fortuitous as Nelson was able to receive a formal education up to and including college. Indeed, it was one of his primary school teachers who arbitrarily decided to change his name to “Nelson.” Eventually, Nelson moved to Johannesburg and began to study law.

Nelson joined the African National Congress in 1942. For the next 20 years he participated in and/or directed peaceful, non-violent protests against the Apartheid government. He was arrested on a few occasions. In 1963 he was one of over 100 persons arrested for various political offenses, including sabotage, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Not surprisingly, former inmates told us that, in the eyes of the government, a political crime was the worst offense, even worse than murder. He spent 27 years in prison, including 18 on Robben Island.

It should be noted that the conditions at Robben Island were not exactly up to the level of American prisons. For example, we saw one section where 50 inmates had to share one toilet. Inadequate food and mistreatment by prison guards were commonplace. It would be easy to become bitter and resentful, but inmates who had been imprisoned with Nelson recall that he continued to preach non-violence and even forgiveness.

Finally, by early 1990 internal and external political, economic and social pressures had built up against the SA government to such a degree that Nelson was released from prison. He continued to work toward a peaceful end of Apartheid. In 1993 he and then President Frederik Willem de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize. (Incidentally, de Klerk deserves a great deal of credit for his role in the ending of Apartheid. It is not easy to cede power the way he did.) Finally, in 1994 blacks were given the right to vote in SA’s first democratic election. Fittingly, Nelson was elected the country’s first black president. The long struggle was over.

In 1999 Nelson withdrew from public office, but he continued his life’s work on behalf of his country. Nelson Mandela died on December 5, 2013 in Johannesburg at the age of 95.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Few people are able to make a real, meaningful difference in millions of people’s lives, to change the course of history. Nelson Mandela was such a man. Today, in SA it is hard to find anyone, white or black, who would say anything negative about the man.

That said, SA has a long way to go. Two generations of blacks and colored were raised under Apartheid. They were denied basic human rights, including education, decent jobs, etc. The disenfranchisement of these people cannot be rectified easily or, possibly, at all. In addition, during this period the country suffered a massive “brain drain,” as many professionals fled the country. I believe SA’s recovery, as a nation, will be a long, hard road, but it can be accomplished. Time will tell.

by Tags: 2 Comments

INCOME INEQUALITY

Income inequality and how to resolve it has become a hot button political, social and economic issue. (Note, in this blog I am not referring to the truly needy who are not able to provide for themselves, but, rather, those who could but are content to have the government provide cradle to grave benefits for them.) Liberals espouse that the haves should give to the have-nots to balance out wealth, or, better yet, the government should take from the haves and give to the have-nots. They have spent the last five years advancing this philosophy. Why should the rich have more income and wealth than the poor? It’s not fair. Americans are all equal, right?

The problem with this philosophy is similar to that of many liberal ideas – it sounds good in theory, but it is impractical, if not downright ludicrous. For example, taken to its extreme, the government would transfer a goodly portion of Denzel Washington’s income and wealth accrued from acting to other less accomplished and less famous actors and actresses. Mr. Washington would no longer be entitled to a seven-figure fee for a movie while less famous and accomplished actors and actresses earn a fraction of that amount. Similarly, Lebron James, “50 Cent” and Lady Gaga should transfer a portion of their income and wealth to other basketball players, rappers and singers to balance out any disparities, and the accountant, plumber or salesman who works 60-hour weeks because he is ambitious and wants to get ahead should nonetheless transfer some of his money to others who choose to relax at home with their families and/or pursue “hobbies.”

The obvious point of the above is to denote that Americans should focus on equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of INCOME AND WEALTH. Society does not owe everyone cradle to grave benefits; what it does owe them is an equal opportunity to improve themselves, for example, through education and antidiscrimination laws in employment. Our system of capitalism, self-reliance, and free enterprise should provide the means and the tools to advance, not a guarantee of advancement. The rest is up to the individual. Not to sound callous, but there will always be people who are smarter, more talented and more ambitious than others. Those people will do better. It’s as simple as that.

I would have liked to be a major league shortstop, but I didn’t have the talent. I would have liked to be a famous singer, but I didn’t have the voice. I would have liked to play in the NBA, but I am 5’11’, not 6’11”. Life is not always fair, but you do your best to maximize your talents. Isn’t that what we tell our kids? Just do your best. If you can’t be a major league baseball player, be the best carpenter, accountant or salesman you can be.

The key is to take advantage of what society provides to you. If one is born into a poor family, rather than lamenting your lot in life and demanding that society provide a certain standard of living for you, take advantage of the free education provided, earn a scholarship to college and raise yourself up. Studies have shown that the level of one’s education is the single greatest determinant of one’s success.

Our society is not like the Indian Caste system or the lords and serf system in the Middle Ages. People can and do move up (or down). Just be happy that you were born in the US, where opportunities abound, rather than in a third-world country where if you’re born poor, you stay poor, and if you’re a female, you’re a second class citizen or worse.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

My advice and belief is don’t accept and bemoan your status in life. Don’t sit around and wait for others or the government to provide for you. Don’t have a sense of entitlement. The world does not owe you a living, just the opportunity for you to earn one. Take advantage of the opportunities that the US provides all of its citizens, and work your way up. Many billionaires started out very modestly, for example, Bill Gates and Paul Allen (Microsoft), Steve Jobs (Apple), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook). The much maligned top 1% is not static; people are constantly moving up and down depending on changes in their circumstances.

Those who preach self-reliance are on the right side of this issue. It is the time-honored American way. It has served us well for 250 years. I believe that most people want to work and improve themselves; they don’t want government handouts. They just need the government to provide the basic infrastructure and opportunity. I predict that a new Administration with a more traditional economic and social philosophy will do just that.

by Tags: Leave a comment

ARRIVEDERCI JAY

After 22 years and countless jokes Jay Leno has retired from the “Tonite Show.” He hosted his final show on February 6, 2014. He was joined by an impressive cavalcade of guests including Billy Crystal and Oprah Winfrey, among many others. The show evoked a range of emotions – humor, poignancy and sadness. Now, it’s on to Jimmy Fallon, a very talented and versatile performer who represents the next generation.

James Douglas Muir “Jay” Leno was born on April 28, 1950 in New Rochelle, NY. He was raised in Andover, MA, outside of Boston, although he normally identifies himself as a “Boston guy.” He has a very distinctive physical feature known as mandibular prognathism, in layman’s terms, a prominent chin. He has been married to the same woman, Mavis, for 34 years, a rarity in Hollywood where many celebrities change spouses as often as they change their shirts. They have no children, but they do have a cat. In addition, Jay has one of the most comprehensive private car collections you will find. Cars are his passion. Jay never seems to take vacations. For him, its work, work, work.

Jay was the host of the “Tonite” Show for such a long time that many people are not cognizant of the fact that he had a long career before that gig. He didn’t just appear magically one day as the host. Like many entertainers, he paid his dues for many years in sleazy backwater clubs and in forgettable movies and television shows. If you want a good laugh, you can access these on “U-tube. In 1977 Jay began appearing periodically as a guest on the “Tonite” Show. Eventually, he worked his way up to guest host, then permanent guest host, then, finally, the “anointed one” (to replace Johnny Carson upon his retirement). In the ultimate non-wisdom of NBC executives he was passed over in favor of David Letterman, but, eventually, he became the permanent host on May 25, 1992, where, except for a brief ill-advised hiatus, he remained until February 6.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Jay is not at the end of his career, not by a long shot. He is still very popular. According to Nielson, the “Tonite” Show ratings are #1 in the late night-time slot among both total viewers and the coveted 18-49 age group. It has been averaging significantly more viewers than the “Late Show,” its primary competition. In leaving now, Jay is following the showbiz tradition of “leave ’em wanting more.” I predict that, being a workaholic, Jay will not simply retire to some beach or be content to fiddle with his cars. Expect to see Jay appearing at your local comedy club or, perhaps, in a TV special or two, and if Fallon should falter, who knows?

As for NBC, I believe they are taking a calculated risk in replacing him. There are both pros and cons to their decision, but my philosophy has always been “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Time will tell if their decision was a wise one.

by Tags: Leave a comment

WINTER OLYMPICS SOCHI STYLE

The 22nd Winter Olympics commence on Friday, February 7 in Sochi, Russia. The first Winter Olympics were held in Chamonix, France in 1924, and they have been held continuously ever since, except for 1940 and 1944 because of WWII. Sochi, for those of you who do not know, is located in Southern Russia, near Chechniya and other terrorist hotspots. Why the Olympic hierarchy selected Sochi, which unlike the last three venues, (Vancouver, Canada, Turin, Italy and Salt Lake City, Utah), is well off the beaten track and lacks sufficient facilities to host the Games, is beyond me, but it did, and here we are.

Everyone is cognizant of the potential for terrorism at the Games. The Russians have gone to great lengths to prevent an attack. Security-wise these Games will be unlike any other. For example:

1. There are reports that suspected troublemakers/terrorists have been rounded up and imprisoned or shot. If this sounds extreme, remember, we’re talking about Russia. They don’t have to concern themselves with legal impediments such as due process or habeas corpus. People just disappear.

2. There are even reports that stray dogs and cats, which are a real problem there, are being shot.

3. US athletes have been advised to keep a low profile. For instance, they have been advised not to wear their Olympic uniforms when outside Olympic venues. In fact, it would probably be advisable not to venture outside the ring of security at all. This takes away from part of the Olympic experience, but the situation is what it is.

4. Families and guests of many Olympians have decided not to go to the Games. In some cases, this has been their own choice; in some cases it is at the request of the Olympian, himself, who wants to be able to concentrate on competing without worrying about his family’s safety. Imagine your spouse or child has worked all his life to compete in the Olympics, and you cannot share his experience in person.

5. The US has stationed two Navy warships in the nearby Black Sea to be available to protect and/or evacuate US citizens, if necessary.

In addition to security, certain accommodation issues have been reported by journalists and others already on the scene. Evidently, the facilities in Sochi are woefully substandard for an Olympic venue. Stories have been posted on facebook, twitter and/or U tube. The pictures are illuminating, to say the least. I don’t know whether they are funny or just embarrassing. You decide. For example:

1. Many of the streets have not been paved. Construction is ongoing.

2. There are many stray dogs and cats roaming free.

3. Six of the nine hotels are not fully operational, and the accommodations in those that have been completed are cramped.

4. Many toilets are not working. Some of the bathrooms have a sign that reads: Please don’t flush toilet paper…Put it in bins provided.”

5. The hotel rooms have double-toilet bathrooms. That’s right – two toilets side-by-side in the bathroom.

6. The water is not potable. You can’t even wash your face with it. One lady described how she had to wash her face with a bottle of Evian water.

7. The actual floor was missing from behind the reception desk in one hotel.

8. In many cases, hotel rooms were not even available. Reservations are non-existent.

9. Stray cats and dogs were found in some rooms (apparently having taken up residence there).

10. Examples of some basic items missing from hotel rooms are:

a. shower curtains
b. lamps
c. light bulbs
d. hot water
e. heat
f. televisions

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Welcome to the Olympics. The Sochi Games are starting out as one big embarrassment for both the host nation and the Olympic hierarchy that chose the venue. It is obvious that Sochi is not ready. It illustrates the risk of choosing a site lacking the basic facilities based on assurances that such facilities will be ready on time. The story of the venue, itself, and why it was chosen may turn out to be as big as the Games, themselves.

by Tags: 1 Comment

AND THE STATE OF THE UNION IS……

… not so good.

On the occasion of the President’s annual State of the Union address, it is an appropriate time to ask yourself the standard question: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago,” (or in this case five years ago)? Chances are the answer is “no.” The economy, though in recovery by some measurements, is still dismal; the national debt is growing at an unacceptable and unsustainable rate; median income, a good measurement of the economic health of the middle class, is stagnant; domestic and international terrorism and violence are on the rise, and Americans’ opinion of the President and the Congress are at or near historic lows.

Lets examine these points one by one.

1. The Economy

On the surface, it appears that the economy is recovering from the Great Recession. The stock market is up year over year. The unemployment rate is down. But, lets look below the surface.

The DJIA, which was 7,000 in February 2009, when President Obama took office, is now over 15,000. It has more than doubled. It is up 14% from January 2013. This is positive for the country’s economic health, right? Not necessarily. This has primarily benefitted the wealthy; they are the ones who own the lion’s share of stocks. The middle class and working poor have derived very little benefit from the DJIA’s rally, particularly since not much of this paper wealth has been used to create jobs. This is one of the ironies of President Obama’s tenure. The primary beneficiaries of his economic policies have been the wealthy.

Unemployment has decreased from near 8% when President Obama took office to about 6.5% currently. Good news, right? Wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics we are becoming a nation of part time workers. In 2013 3/4 of the new jobs created were part time. From December 2007 through the third quarter of 2013, the latest statistics available, full time jobs actually decreased from 121 million to 118 million, while part time jobs increased from 25 million to 27 million. There are various reasons for this, but my opinion is that employers are creating part time jobs to avoid paying workers’ benefits, especially healthcare. Since healthcare is becoming more expensive, this trend is likely to accelerate.

Median household income, which many economists consider to be one of the most reliable measurements of economic health, especially for the middle class, has been stagnant. According to US Census Bureau statistics, it was $49,777 in 2009 at the height of the Great Recession, and it only rose to $51,017 in 2013. Not significant progress.

Then, we come to the national debt. According to the US Treasury it is over $17 trillion compared to $10 trillion when President Obama took office. To be sure, there are many reasons for this, but the fact is that any economist will tell you that this level of debt is way too high and the percentage of year-over-year increase is unsustainable for a healthy economy. It also has had negative geopolitical consequences.

2. Terrorism and violence

Terrorism and violence are increasing at an alarming rate. Rather than “being on the run” as the Administration has asserted, Al Quaeda has morphed into various splinter groups and is as active as it has ever been. There has been major unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Syria, Libya and Eqypt, among others. In addition, we have had to deal with two very dangerous, rogue states in North Korea and Iran, both of which either possess or will soon possess nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them. Furthermore, there is the very real danger of a terrorist event at the Olympics next month. Domestically, there were the bombings at the Boston Marathon, as well as many other threats. Finally, the US’s level of respect, both among our allies and our enemies, is as low as I can remember. Do you feel safer today than you did five years ago?

3. Americans’ Opinion of Government

A President’s approval ratings always decline in his second term, especially in the last two years when the President is normally perceived as a “lame duck.” According to Gallup, President Obama’s approval rating is currently 43%. That is not good, but it is better than Congress’, which is about 14%. According to Gallup, that is the lowest it has ever recorded. Clearly, most voters are dissatisfied with all the back- biting and failure to cooperate on the part of both parties. The end result is nothing gets done, and the level of frustration is as high as it’s ever been.

Historically, voters’ dissatisfaction has fallen mostly on the party currently in office. This does not bode well for the 36 Democratic senators who are up for re-election. Many of them, such as Mark Begich (Alabama), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Udall (Utah), and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), are trying to distance themselves from President Obama, politically. For example, they have signaled that they don’t want him to help in their respective campaigns. The Dems are in real danger of losing the Senate.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

For all of the reasons cited above, the state of the union is as dire as at any time I can recall, and the immediate prognosis is also poor. Few people are better off than they were five years ago. If you are one of the few, “mazel tov.”

The 2014 mid-term elections will be critical for the future of the country and will be a precursor for the 2016 Presidential Election. In my opinion, there is a strong likelihood that the GOP will recapture the majority in the Senate and also do well in the governors’ races. If so, this will give them a boost for 2016.

by Leave a comment

POVERTY IN AMERICA

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson, as part of his “Great Society” program, declared a “War on Poverty,” in America. 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of this war. So, where do we stand? Have we succeeded or failed, and why? I will present the facts, and you decide.

1. In 1964 approximately 17% of Americans were living in poverty. Today, the figure is 15%. That’s over 46 million people, folks. (In 2010, the official poverty income line was $22,113 for a family of 4.)

2. It is estimated that over 51% of Americans will live in poverty at some point in their lives before the age of 65.

3. The marginal improvement in the poverty rate has been achieved after we have spent $21 trillion in various anti-poverty programs in 50 years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

4. According the Wall Street Journal, in 2012 the Federal government spent $916 billion on approximately 80 welfare programs. One hundred million Americans received aid from at least one of these programs. This does NOT include medicare and social security.
These statistics demonstrate that throwing money at the situation has not worked. Why? To a large extent poverty is driven by personal behavior.

5. It is true that some children start life with certain disadvantages. Statistics show that a person born into a single parent home, who is poorly educated is more likely to live in poverty. A Heritage Foundation study has concluded that single parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty. Moreover, children that have been raised by a single parent are three times more likely to end up in prison and 50% more likely to be poor as adults. But, these circumstances can be overcome with hard work, a stable home environment and a good education, among other things. After all, many wealthy, successful people were born into poverty and/or modest circumstances.

6. Poverty and wealth are not static. Most people move up or down the ladder throughout their lifetimes based on various factors and circumstances. For example, the Institute for Humane Studies has found that between 1986 and 1997 42% of people moved up or down at least one income quintile.

7. In 1963 6% of babies were born out of wedlock. In 2013 the figure was 41%, a whopping 72% for African Americans. Regardless of the reasons (single women now better able to support themselves and deciding to have children without a husband, sexual promisquity, or other reasons), the end result is the same – more babies born into single parent homes, with all of the economic and social consequences discussed above.

$21 trillion over 50 years with marginal improvement. Did we get sufficient “bang for our bucks?” I think not. The reason is pretty clear. Throwing money at this problem does not solve it, at least not by itself.

President Obama has talked a good game. He has espoused a strong desire to eliminate poverty. It is related to his goal of achieving “income equality.” It sounds good; it is a worthwhile objective, and many people have “bought into it.” However, his methodology is flawed. Transferring wealth from the rich to the poor does not solve the poverty problem. That is socialism or, in its extreme, communism. We have seen empirically in other countries that neither system works in the long run.

The government cannot create wealth; only individuals can through capital investing and other entrepreneurial activities. Capitalism and free enterprise expand the money supply and create wealth. Don’t fixate on the income and wealth gap between the rich and poor. There will always be a substantial gap, because smart, ambitious and creative people will always find a way to succeed, even in adverse economic times. The have-nots should not be envious of the haves; their mindset should not be “I want to be given some of what he has; I’m entitled to it.” Rather, it should be “I aspire to earn what he has, and I will strive to do so.” Wealthy people are the ones who provide investment capital, thus creating wealth and ultimately jobs for the middle and working class. President Kennedy was correct when he asserted “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

The past 50 years has shown that money and government programs are only part of the answer. If we really want to eliminate poverty we have to supplement these safety net programs with other approaches. Some of these might be:

1. Focus more on education, which is still the greatest single factor in future economic success. One cannot change the circumstances of one’s birth, but one can become educated.

2. Instill greater social responsibility, i.e. discourage out of wedlock births, more involved parenting; discourage addictive behavior among children (drugs, alcohol).

3. Recognize that many of these government programs discourage individual initiative and work ethic, encourage laziness and foster a permanent sense of dependency and entitlement. We should seek to limit them to the truly needy.

4. Reign in the “race hustlers” (We know who they are.), who do more harm than good.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

My conclusion is that the War on Poverty, though a good idea and well-intentioned, has not been a success when you consider the substantial resources expended. That does not mean we should eliminate our various economic and social safety nets. They are necessary for the truly needy. Rather, we should administer them better and supplement them with other resolutions as discussed above.

This will not be easy. It will be a very controversial process. It will require reversing, or at least arresting, certain economic and social trends which have become engrained in our culture. There will be much political and social resistance. I am not optimistic.

by Tags: 2 Comments