Monday, July 31, 2017

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMMIGRATION


I recently came across a text book from a political science class which I took about 60 years ago. It is a compilation of various important political documents. One that caught my eye is the American Declaration of Independence. In perusing it, I found ideas that I must have read in the past but which had little real meaning to me at the time of reading or perhaps that I had just forgotten. One such line that holds particular importance in the present time is a grievance against King George of England which says, “He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws of naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither,…”

So King George discouraged immigration to America because he feared immigration would make America stronger and therefore more difficult to control just as Trump and the GOP in the present time discourage immigration because they fear immigrants are more likely to become Democratic voters thereby increasing the strength of the Democratic party relative to the Republicans. The USA is a nation of immigrants and their children. Immigration is an important factor in making America strong and independent just as King George feared many years ago.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

HEALTH CARE


Obamacare has provided higher quality health care for more Americans at a more affordable price than existed before Obamacare, and has done it preserving a well regulated capitalist healthcare system. It is a work in progress and needs tweaking (not repeal and/or replacement with inferior quality Trumpcare) to make it even better.

To provide high quality equitably distributed health care it needs to keep:

1.    Mandated health insurance for everyone. Taking away the mandate will cripple American health insurance. If healthy young people are not included, the pool will be weighted with expensive sick people. That’s how insurance works. You pay into it even when you don’t need it so that you have it when you do need it.

2.    Acceptance even with pre-existing conditions. The mandate will ultimately even this out.

 It needs to add:

1.    A public option. This will add to competition (a capitalist concept). It will also fill gaps where a suitable private option is not available (like some sparsely populated rural areas).

2.    Promote efficient health care delivery systems to keep down costs. For example, in the Kaiser model, the insurance company and medical group negotiate the plan every year. Medical group has responsibility to provide quality care. Insurance company has responsibility to provide the money. Together they negotiate value.

3.    Control drug prices. It should be illegal to advertise prescription drugs to the public. That adds unnecessary expense and promotes drugs based on popularity rather than effectiveness, efficiency, and necessity.

4.    It is known that non-profit health care plans provide the best care for the price, probably because they don’t have investors skimming off the top. Perhaps the market will eventually eliminate for profit plans.

A single payer system is not necessarily the best way to go. But as things progress, if it becomes apparent that it is the best way to go, then so be it. All things being even, a well regulated capitalist system is probably the best.

Trumpcare and lack of regulation promotes fly by night, quick buck, in and out plans that keep quality down in order to keep prices competitive. Patients get caught when they need care that is not provided. Also, preventive care in high quality plans actually keeps costs down by keeping patients healthy. People with no or poor quality insurance end up with more expensive emergency room care that the community ends up paying for. Emergency rooms are set up and their staffs are trained to provide emergency care, not routine health care.

 

Monday, July 24, 2017

ANTI-SEMITISM AND ISRAEL


We 5 million Jews in America are fortunate to live in a country where anti-semitism exists but is at a low. The 6 million Jews in Israel live in an embattled fortress (or ghetto) located in a scary chaotic part of the world. Many of the other 2 million Jews are exposed to a growing resurgence of anti-semitism to varying degrees in various parts of the world. Modern Zionism began in the late 19th Century with the hope that the existence of a Jewish state would be an antidote to anti-Semitism, a place where a Jew would live in peace. Unfortunately no plan however noble and well thought out unfolds perfectly.

For me, being a Zionist means I am concerned for the safety of all my fellow Jews everywhere in the world, and 5 out of 13 of us live in Israel. When Benjamin Netanyahu claims to represent all of us Jews in the world, I disagree. When he asks us all to go live in Israel to be safe, he is not exactly correct. It depends on where the particular Jew happens to be living as to whether he or she is more or less safe than in Israel. Is Israel protecting me as an American? It is a 2 way street, but I think my country, America, is in a greater position to protect Netanyahu’s Israel. The truth is that we all live in the same world, we Jews and everyone else. There are people in the world who are willing to harm us and others for some abstract foolishness. Unfortunately, people who are stupid in their purpose can also acquire enough technical ability to create great harm. We Jews must be a part of the sane, intelligent, and good people who work together to overcome the foolish people who wish to do harm to us and even themselves for their cause. Israel like other countries does good and bad, probably more good than bad. Israel has produced great scientific and technical achievements that have given benefits throughout the world. Unfortunately it has not always acted wisely in its relations with the Palestinian Arabs just as the Palestinian Arabs have not always acted wisely in their relations with Israel. Hopefully one day, their problems can be resolved so that Israel can be the haven that Theodore Herzl envisioned for all the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine.

Friday, July 21, 2017

ETHICS AND LEGALITY IN GOVERNMENT


Walter Schaub, the recently outgoing Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, was interviewed on television after he decided to resign from his post. In the interview he explained that the function of this Office is to advise people in government how to avoid doing unethical acts and warn them when they are doing unethical acts whether on purpose or inadvertently. He complained that Trump and his team are not concerned with acting ethically. They believe that anything they do which does not break the law is OK whether or not it is ethical, in other words whatever they can get away with. That view is apparently the way Trump acted in his business dealings before he became president. As president, Trump mixes up his personal business with his role as a public servant and uses the office of presidency to support his personal financial business. Trump believes that is strictly speaking within the law. There is some question as to whether that is true. However even if it is legal, it is not ethical to push the envelope to the edge. Those who follow and enable Trump say all politicians do it, so it is OK. However that is not true. Trump is unique in his lack of ethical behavior.

Monday, July 17, 2017

WHO IS A JEW AND WHO IS A HEBREW?


Like all religions, Judaism seeks to make order out of an otherwise chaotic and tragic existence which gives each person life and the ability to think and then abruptly takes it away in a ridiculously short time. Most religions (at least Western Religions) offer what they consider the true or best path to the after life for everyone. For Christians this is belief in Jesus as the Son of God. For Moslems this is belief in Mohammed as the Prophet. Some of the sub-religions in each of the major religions believe that they have the real true path as opposed to the other sub-religions. Therefore according to each religion and even sub-religion, a person would have the best (or in some cases only) path to Heaven by following the teaching of that religion or sub-religion, and therefore all people should believe in their teachings. Some extreme forms of religion believe in killing people who do not accept their way.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (whether you believe them as historical or mythical people) were tribal leaders and the origin of the Jews in our Bible. They lived in a time when most people believed in multiple gods and each culture had its own. Abraham believed there was one God for all people, but he did not demand one formal religion for everyone. The name Judaism comes from Judah, one of the sons of Isaac and therefore does not actually occur until some time after this period. Judaism arose as the religion of the Jews during or after the time in Egypt. According to Jewish thought, the Jews (or Hebrews) are a people, and Judaism is the religion of that people. We Jews are the people who brought monotheism to the world according to our teachings, and monotheism is the truth for everyone as opposed to polytheism. The Jewish religion is how Jews worship God, not necessarily how others need to. Other monotheistic religions are how other people (nations in English, goyim in Hebrew)”, worship the same God. Judaism is not the track to salvation for everyone. The good news is that this allows for religious tolerance in Judaism, but the bad news is that it can mix up religion and nationalism. Possibly the best description of the Jewish view of being Jewish can be found in the musical play Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye in speaking to God says, “I know we are supposed to be the Chosen People, but could you maybe next time choose someone else.”

This mixing up of religion and nationalism is not so much of a problem for us American Jews. We live in a country that emphasizes separation of church and state since America’s beginning. This creates questions in Israel which was founded as a Jewish and democratic state. But this founding concept creates questions because ¼ of the population are not Jews, and ½ of the Jews do not practice the Jewish religion. Another complicating factor is that the state gives management of Jewish religious matters including the definition of who is a Jew to the Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical establishment. Other branches of Judaism (e.g. Conservative and Reform) do not receive the funding that Orthodox Judaism receives.

The definition of who is a Jew depends on who is doing the defining. Some people would say it refers to only people who practice the Jewish religion. Others would extend it to people whose ancestors at one time practiced the Jewish religion. Officially Jewishness conveyed by heredity is only conveyed by one’s mother being a Jew, but not everyone is so strict about that. One might say that inherited Jewishness is lost if one converts to another religion. These details can be accepted or not accepted without great consequence in the Diaspora but become a matter of identity in Israel where it takes on a political importance because by law any Jew can enter Israel and immediately become a citizen. This is inherent in Zionism’s purpose. Some people would define a Jew as anyone who inherits Jewishness from a father or a mother, and some might extend it to anyone who is willing to accept and share our identity, history, and fate.

I think there should be 2 words, one for a person who practices the Jewish religion and one who is a Jew by sharing our history, culture, language, and identity. One who is Jewish by religion could be called a Jew and one who speaks Hebrew and embraces the Jewish culture could be called a Hebrew whether or not one is a Jew by religion. This view (or at least a similar view) was espoused by Bernard Avishai in his book, The Hebrew Republic. There should be more to being a Hebrew than just saying “I am a Hebrew.” Otherwise any person who wishes to do harm to Israel could say it to enter. Any Jew as presently defined would be a Hebrew. Being a descendant of practicing Jews could make a person a Hebrew. Israeli Arabs could be Hebrews if they take on Hebrew as at least one of their primary languages and recognize Hebrew (Jewish) culture and history as at least part of their own history and culture, thereby assimilating at least partially into the general Israeli culture. Considering himself (or herself) a Hebrew might remove any mixed emotions an Israeli Arab might feel. Any Hebrew living in Israel would have to pledge his or her primary allegiance to Israel. The designation of Hebrew would not automatically apply to Palestinian Arabs outside of Israel (whether or not it seems fair) because it would change the demography in such a way that would change the character of Israel. Designating a person who would not qualify as a Jew under the present definition as a Hebrew would have to be done by the secular Israeli government on a case by case basis. The reason for all of this would be to increase Israel’s strength and security by being more inclusive to all its citizens and by bringing in as many loyal citizens as possible. There are only so many Jews in the Diaspora and most have no desire to move to Israel. Inclusivity will push the demographic clock in Israel’s favor, and put it in a more strategic position whether things evolve into 2 states (Israel and Palestine), one unified Israel, or a confederation of Israel and Palestine.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

AN EXCITING VERSUS BORING PRESIDENT


During the 2016 presidential election, I happened to be speaking to a person who asked me whom I was planning to vote for. I answered that I was planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. So I asked him who he favored. He answered he was planning to vote for Donald Trump. I then replied, don’t you think he is kind of crazy. He agreed. He said he thought Trump was different, interesting, perhaps exciting. He would shake things up. It did not make sense to me, but I think it was a major factor in making Trump appealing to enough people to take him over the top in winning the electoral college. We hear people say that Hillary should have done a better job in addressing the concerns of the rust belt workers. We know that Putin sent his hackers to tip the scale for Trump, his preferred candidate. I think those factors actually did play important roles in electing Trump, but I think there was an additional factor that was also important and maybe the most important of all.

When the race for president between John Mc Cain and Barack Obama was drawing to a close, it was becoming evident that the economy was about to crash after years of the government borrowing money to pay for the Iraq War and more importantly income tax cuts which drained the treasury. President Bush called both candidates to a meeting where the economic problem was presented to them. Obama had thoughtful intelligent questions and Mc Cain did not. It became apparent to enough of the electorate that the USA was in deep economic trouble, and Obama was the candidate who was better prepared to address the problem.

On the other hand, after 8 years of incremental economic growth under Obama (despite obstruction by the Republican Congress), many people became bored. Success and the absence of turmoil can be boring. So along came Trump, a populist candidate who complained (untruthfully) that America was in a bad situation. Many people, especially some who had not progresses as much as they thought they should have, believed him. Many of those same people were major beneficiaries of programs like Obamacare. Perception trumped truth. Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a continuation of the Obama presidency (boring). A number of people on the Left were bored. They liked the fire and spice of Bernie Sanders, but were turned off by the business-like approach of Hillary (again boring) and stayed home from the election (or in some cases actually voted for Donald) in spite of the urging by Sanders to vote for Clinton.

So what are the implications for the future? I think there is enough of a push back in America to give at least one house of Congress to the Democrats in 2018. But what will happen in 2020 assuming Trump is still president and still wants to run for another term? Should the Democrats run a boring competent candidate like Hillary Clinton or a fiery far left candidate like Bernie Sanders. It probably won’t be those candidates. It probably will depend on what will be happening as the election is approaching. If things continue to go downhill as they have been doing during the first months of the Trump presidency, a boring Democratic candidate might not look so bad. Mark Warner would be a balanced candidate with solid ideas, but is he too boring? I like the fire of Elizabeth Warren. As a believer in well regulated capitalism, I find some of her ideas to the left of mine, but I think if elected she would face whatever reality presents itself in a reasonable manner. After all, people on the extreme Left and Right viewed Obama as a Leftist because he was Black, had a funny name, and used active slogans to motivate his base. But from the beginning if one actually listened to his ideas, he was and has remained a slightly left Centrist (which is the main attribute that appeals to me).

Well we will see how things unfold over the coming 2 and 4 years. We live in interesting times. Maybe less interesting or downright boring would be better.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

WELL REGULATED CAPITALISM


Fareed Zakharia interviewed Senator Mark Warner on television last Sunday, and I was impressed with Senator Warner’s views. He seemed to favor a well regulated capitalism that works for all Americans. This differs from the views of the Tea Party Republicans who favor an unregulated capitalism that works for richest people at the top, the fast buck artists, and the financial predators. It also differs from the social bigots who believe Trump when he blames their failures on people other than themselves (like immigrants) and gives them false hope that he will return America backwards to a time that worked for them but no longer exists. But it also differs from the views of the far Left. He does not lay the blame for all of America’s ills on the large corporations.

My views on the economy which I think are similar to Senator Warner’s views (if I read them correctly) are that socialism has good intentions but does not necessarily produce the best results. Communism (which is socialism combined with authoritarianism) had a run during the end of World War I until almost the end of the 20th Century when the Soviet Union collapsed. After a brief flirtation with democracy, Russia returned to authoritarianism under Putin with an extreme government controlled capitalism. China, the other huge communist country has evolved into a combination of residual authoritarian communism combined with capitalism (although softer, more responsible, and more successful than Russia). It seems that most of the communist countries have ultimately evolved into capitalist economies although often retaining the authoritarianism of communism. This speaks for the desirability of some sort of capitalism. On the other hand, capitalism left unchecked by regulation as desired by the Tea Party leads to a quick buck predatory capitalism in which wealth becomes concentrated into a small group of oligarchs who control the economy to create a kind of socialism for the very rich. A capitalism that works for everyone must be well regulated to keep it from running amuck. This well regulated capitalism must combine as much as possible the competition of capitalism with social justice for everyone.