Category Archives: economy

MAKING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE GREAT AGAIN

We must maintain our existing infrastructure while we build more of it; and we need to agree on how to do that.  One guiding principle for those decisions is “TANSTAAFL”.  That’s the acronym for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”.  Infrastructure is expensive.

The report card on American infrastructure published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is probably the most comprehensive analysis available.  It identifies a multitude of current and anticipated concerns.  Our Congress has paid only scant attention to ASCE warnings about our backlog of maintenance and construction needs.

President Trump has proposed spending $1 Trillion on infrastructure over the coming decade and has pointed out that a lot of new jobs could be created through such a program. He has yet to clarify how projects would be selected, who would own them and how they would be funded.

Our existing infrastructure has been built and is owned by a sometimes bewildering mix of local, state, regional and national government entities along with utility companies, railroads, airport authorities, and various kinds of public-private partnerships.  Sometimes, as in the case of abandoned dams and waste disposal sites, ownership is not clearly identified.

Even if the congress could agree on a way to standardize and prioritize our infrastructure ownership and financing, it would probably be a bad idea.  The ways of doing things that work well in rural America are often different from the best ways to do things in urban areas.  The process of deciding what to build, how much government money to spend and how to organize the effort will necessarily be complicated, messy, and sometimes controversial.  Despite that, it’s worth doing.

We should look back at the last serious effort to renew our infrastructure in hopes that this effort will succeed where the last one failed – in the United States Senate.  In 2011, President Obama proposed a more modest and more specific infrastructure plan that called for $50 billion in federal spending on highway, rail, airport and transit improvements plus another $10 billion to start a “National Infrastructure Bank” intended to spur public-private partnerships.  The proposal passed the Senate by a 51-49 vote but was blocked by a Republican filibuster – as were most Obama initiatives.

President Obama proposed to pay for his plan by imposing a surtax of 7/10 of one percent on incomes in excess of $1 million.  President Trump’s more ambitious proposal appears to call for $200 billion in federal spending plus unspecified local and state spending and unspecified private spending accounting for the rest of the $1 trillion price tag.  He has not announced a plan to pay for it other than by mentioning that our low interest rates make this an inexpensive time to borrow money.

This complicated but important issue is the kind that our traditional Congressional procedures were designed to address.  Advice from experts will be needed, followed by a great deal of negotiation and compromise. There is no perfect plan for such complex needs.  There will be negotiations to determine which states and communities get their projects approved.  Every decision will be subject to criticism and second-guessing.   That’s how it was with big federal projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority and facilities for NASA, our armed forces and other federal departments.  The planning was complex and  controversial but certainly worth the trouble.

Leaders in both political parties know that our national infrastructure needs renewal and expansion.  Both parties have proposed it when they were in power.  Are they up to the task of responsibly designing a way to achieve and pay for that ambitious goal?  Their predecessors in the 1930s through the 1960s figured out how to establish a national power grid, phone service, interstate highways, NASA, hydroelectric dams, public water and sewer systems, national parks, airports, hospitals, schools…the list goes on.  They facilitated public-private collaboration in ways that worked for American citizens – things like blending rural utility co-ops, private utility companies, and municipally owned utilities into national electric, gas, and phone systems.

Today about 18 million Americans are served by water systems that violate lead safety standards.  That’s just one example of our problems.  There are similar concerns in every category of infrastructure and there are no simple answers.  We need a congress that is willing to do their homework and make hard decisions on behalf of the citizens who elected them.  That can happen if voters demand it.  TANSTAAFL.

Congressional Legislative Malpractice

The 13 Senators who drafted a bill to replace Obamacare are all Republican, male, white, over age 40, and prosperous.  California, Florida and New York, which together account for one-fourth of our population, were not in the room but there were two Senators from number fifty Wyoming.

Discussing diverse opinions is one way to identify and avoid unintended consequences of new legislation. Do Republicans think that women, middle class, minorities, young, poor, and other Americans left out of the process have no ideas worthy of consideration?

They did their work in secret meetings without input by experts in health policy or economics, out of the sight of the public and the press.  The result is a political bill to satisfy Republican ideology with little regard for facts or alternatives.

Previously, Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a similar bill that was designed behind closed doors without serious public hearings, expert testimony or debate.  They proceeded despite a Congressional Budget Office projection that it would cause 23 million Americans to become uninsured.  The CBO’s estimate of spending reductions from the bill  amount to $43 per month saved for each person who loses health benefits – not a good deal!

There’s no doubt that Obamacare has serious problems in the individual and small employer exchanges.  Republicans try to mislead us into believing that those troubles mean that the law is failing.  It isn’t.   Because of Obamacare 20 million more Americans are now insured and the rate of growth in total health care spending is lower than it was before Obamacare.  It is a successful law that needs improvements.

Bluntly, Republican lawmakers don’t believe that all Americans should receive basic health care regardless of their ability to pay and they’re willing to let other Americans die for that ideology.  Republican leadership intends to pass their bill before Americans understand that it will cause more people to lose health benefits,  more healthcare related family bankruptcies and more individuals suffering death or disability.

Rushing ill-considered bills through a legislature to satisfy an ideology is not limited to the congress.  North Carolina Republicans imagined an “emergency” when Charlotte passed a civil rights ordinance allowing transgender citizens to use restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity (and, in most cases, consistent with their physical appearance).  Rather than holding hearings and carefully considering what (if any) legislation was needed, they packed the infamous HB-2 with unrelated and controversial provisions then passed it as “emergency” legislation.  If standard legislative processes had been followed, a more appropriate response (or no response) to Charlotte’s ordinance might have been made.  HB-2 has been mostly repealed, but the damage to the state’s reputation remains and some economic losses will never be recovered.

Similarly, North Carolina Republicans gerrymandered the state’s congressional and legislative districts through secret processes.  They hired attorneys who hired consultants to design legislative districts that would give massive election advantages to Republicans.  Because the work was done through attorneys, they were able to claim attorney-client privilege as justification for refusing to let the public and the press see exactly how they instructed the consultants.  The US Supreme Court ruled that the result of their work was racial discrimination.  It again seems obvious that an open process with public hearings could have produced a better outcome.

If Republicans were practicing medicine rather than legislating, their negligence would be called malpractice.  They circumvented the rules and procedures  that  assure thoughtful deliberation before laws are passed. That violates American values, undermines trust in government and exposes us all to the negative consequences of ill-considered laws.

Senate Republicans plan to debate, amend and pass a healthcare bill back to the House of Representatives in 10 days, with no public hearings and no expert testimony.  As an example of the unanticipated consequences of doing that, unemployed Republican rural voters in the coal mining areas of the Kentucky mountains will probably lose their Medicaid benefits and see closure of clinics opened to serve them under Obamacare.  Health care has added more jobs than mining lost in the Kentucky mountains.  Similar outcomes are inevitable in other places.  The damage to the credibility of our legislative processes is severe.  Worst of all, Americans will die as a result of Republican legislative malpractice.

Paying Donald Trump’s Taxes

“If this is what happens when you vote Republican, then why vote Republican?” – Rush Limbaugh, May 1, 2017.  It’s a good question.

The most thorough analysis to date of President Trump’s tax plan is winners in trump tax planthe Tax Policy Center’s report  on a very similar plan that he proposed last year.  It projects that the 20 percent of Americans with the lowest incomes would gain $110 annually.  The 20 percent with middle incomes would gain $1010.  The 20 percent with the highest incomes would gain $16,660.  And, most stunning of all, the one tenth of one percent of Americans with the highest incomes would save $1,066,460 every year.

That will be paid for by increasing our federal deficits and debt at the rate of more than $700 billion per year.  Every year, every American (even children who can’t vote) will become responsible for repaying $2153 in new debt. Counting principal and interest, Trump’s tax plan would burden every child born in 2017 with about $64,000 in new debt by their twenty-first birthdays.

That’s a great deal for children born into extremely wealthy families because they will get over a million dollars a year in tax savings.  But for a child born to a poor or middle class family, the debt will be a barrier to success in a nation that can’t continue living on borrowed money.  Here are a few examples of what President Trump is trying to sell us and some alternative reforms that would serve the nation better.

Trump’s plan would eliminate the estate tax.  He calls it a “death tax” and says it impedes the inheritance of small businesses and family farms.  But the estate tax only applies to assets in excess of $10.9 million passed on by a married couple (half of that for an individual).  Repealing the estate tax will allow heirs of the super-rich to receive millions of dollars as tax-free inheritances while those who work for their money pay income taxes.  This idea is the ultimate example of an entitlement mentality among American aristocracy.  If President Trump has been truthful about his net worth, the estate tax repeal will allow his heirs to receive $10 billion tax free.

How is an inheritance not income?  Some of the wealthy will argue that they already paid income taxes on the money to be passed on.  I hope that is true.  When a middle class family pays to have their home repainted, they have already paid taxes on that money.  The painter will be taxed on his income too.  Taxing earned money while not taxing inherited money – what a way for the President to treat the blue-collar workers who elected him!

President Trump wants to eliminate most itemized deductions but keep the one for mortgage interest. It serves the purpose of making home ownership easier but wealthy Americans frequently mortgage homes and use the proceeds to pay for second homes or income producing investments.  With that in mind, we should cap the size of deductible mortgages at an amount that subsidizes ownership of a nice home.  There is no justification for subsidizing million dollar mortgages.

The President wants to cap corporate taxes at 15%, which he says will encourage business expansion here by making our taxes competitive and slightly lower than other nations.  He’s right about that.  Corporations should be viewed as tax collectors not as tax payers.  They collect from customers and then pass some of their income along as taxes.

A better idea is to pass the tax liability for corporate profits (and deductions for losses) along to shareholders at whatever rate they pay on earned income.  This will allow lower-income families to invest and begin accumulating wealth while paying low or no tax.  Those with higher incomes would pay more.  Under that policy, each taxpayer would pay the same rate on wages as on investment income.

Our tax code offers more advantages for the extremely wealthy than can be covered in a column of this kind.  The Trump plan will move us further down the road toward establishment of an entitled American aristocracy – exactly the wrong direction to go if we want upward mobility into the middle class and beyond.

President Trump’s proposal is the proverbial pig wearing lipstick.  This pig would require every American to borrow money that will pay for tax cuts for the extremely wealthy.  Its lipstick, some nearly inconsequential tax cuts for the poor and middle class, is a thin disguise.

Links for additional reading:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/a-comprehensive-guide-to-donald-trumps-tax-proposal/524451/

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-09/estate-tax-repeal-under-trump-would-benefit-president-cabinet

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/upshot/winners-and-losers-in-the-trump-tax-plan.html

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/04/25/stockman-trumps-tax-plan-dead-before-arrival.html

How high are American taxes compared to other nations?  CLICK THIS LINK: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-revenue.htm#indicator-chart

WE CAN CHOOSE HOPE OVER DESPAIR

“There are people whose lives are so hard they break.”  Those are the words of Eileen Crimmins, a professor at the University of Southern California.  She wasn’t talking about Syrian refugees or undocumented immigrants.  She was talking about a large subgroup of white American citizens.

The average life expectancy of white Americans age 25-54 declined between 1999 and 2014 because of a rapid rise in premature deaths from drug overdoses, suicides, and cirrhosis associated with alcohol consumption.  The death rate from drug overdoses among 25 -34 year old whites was five times higher in 2014 than in 1999.  It tripled among 35 – 44 year olds.  By 2014, the overdose death rate among whites was double the rate for blacks or Hispanics.  Although whites still live longer, the black-white gap closed considerably because of the premature white deaths.

CLICK GRAPH to enlarge and see changes in drug overdose death rate by race.
CLICK GRAPH to enlarge and see changes in drug overdose death rate by race.

The rising death rates are heavily concentrated among whites without college degrees.  Rural areas and small towns of the Southeast, Southwest, and the Midwestern “rustbelt” have been especially hard hit.

Why are so many white Americans killing themselves with drugs, alcohol and guns?  (Almost half of all American suicides are by gun.)  The most common hypothesis among researchers is that these are “deaths of despair” among Americans who no longer have hope for a satisfactory future.

Economists, sociologists, psychologists and public health researchers are only beginning to study and understand this troubling trend.  It’s clear that the problems of poverty, lack of jobs with good wages, and lack of education have existed at higher rates among black Americans than among whites for all of our history but it’s the white Americans who are killing themselves with drugs, alcohol and guns.  Why?

One hypothesis is that this large group of white Americans have been taught to expect that, like their parents, they could support a family and live middle-class lives with a high school education.  They counted on factory work, and semi-skilled labor to pay for necessities and a few luxuries.  Those expectations have been shattered.  They blame corporations, immigrants, government, and public policy (such as trade treaties) for their plight.  They also point a finger at themselves and far too many turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide as avenues of escape.

The white labor class may be suffering so much despair because they are just now experiencing what the black labor class, unprotected by labor unions and discriminated against by employers, have known from childhood.  They can’t pay their way into the middle class.  In many cases their marriages have failed and their families have shattered under the stress of economic pressures.  Many lack the literacy skills, time and money to pursue better opportunities.  They see little hope for themselves and their communities.

Our economy will use the least expensive combination of machines, computers, and people to produce goods and services.  Then it will sell those goods and services in exchange for more money and repeat the process.  In that environment, it is up to each individual to find a way to succeed.  Otherwise, the economy will find you to be expendable.

Blame is irrelevant.  The important question is, “What future will we choose to create?”  The replacement of human work with automation and artificial intelligence has barely begun and no one knows how rapidly it will accelerate.  A report by PWC, an international consulting firm, says that 38% of American jobs are at high risk of replacement by automation in the next 15 years.

We shouldn’t even try to stop the trend, but we do need to prepare for it.  Public education must be redesigned to prepare every student for life-long learning at the college level.  Parents and communities must encourage and support it because jobs with good wages will require continuous learning at that level.  Even if manufacturing returns to the US, the old jobs will not accompany it.  There will be far more automation and the new jobs will require skills that few of us have today. In addition, minimum wage, healthcare, and other public policies must be sufficient to support viable families.

As we envision our futures, it’s good to remember Jackson Browne’s line, “You can dream but you can never go back the way you came.”  We can create a good future, but it won’t be the same as our past.  We must not sacrifice another generation of Americans by preparing them for a future that won’t exist.  Instead, we should prepare them for hope and success.

References for further reading:

Commonwealth fund brief on white mortality trends

NPR report with international comparisons

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CDC life expectancy change by race

A Republican Plan for Climate Change?

A group of conservative Republican leaders has published a credible sounding proposal for slowing climate change, a goal previously championed mostly by liberal Democrats.  The proposal, if scientifically and economically valid, could unite those who care about our climate across partisan and culture war divides. We face an increasingly urgent threat to mankind’s future.  This proposal deserves immediate objective study and all the collaboration we can muster.

The idea is called a “Carbon Dividends Plan”.   They have organized as “The Climate Council“.  You can click the link to see their work and hear them discuss it.  Here are the basics: Continue reading A Republican Plan for Climate Change?

We can do well while doing good

The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.

Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected.  The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.

Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.

Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.

In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.

The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.

What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act.  Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.

Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.

Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.

It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do.  We have two such opportunities at the moment.  Accept the Medicaid expansion.  Repeal HB2.  Everybody will win.

Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies.  It’s time to change your minds.

What is the future of our jobs?

Today I’d like to introduce you to SAM. His full name is Semi Automated Mason.  SAM can lay as many bricks as three human masons.   He has only one year of experience and will become more skilled and productive as he continues to learn. On the other hand, SAM could become unemployed when on-site 3-D printing of walls becomes feasible.  It’s being tested now.

SAM’s story is important because it exemplifies a worldwide trend.  We are still in the early days of an economic and social upheaval that will be bigger than the industrial revolution; and we’re not prepared for what’s coming.  An Oxford University study identified jobs most and least likely to be replaced by automation.  Looking at the list, it becomes apparent that some among us will benefit from less expensive products and services produced through automation while others lose their jobs.

It’s going to happen regardless of what presidential candidates promise about creating jobs or trade treaties.  Even in China and undeveloped nations, automation is faster and cheaper than human labor.  That is true in the production of both “things” and services.  Human operators for elevators and long distance phone calls were displaced a long time ago.  Soon automation  will replace us in jobs as diverse as loan officer, manicurist, and drivers – not just drivers of taxis but also of trucks and buses.

In economic terms, this revolution means that fewer people can produce more goods and services.  The total amount of wealth available will increase.  Some of us will benefit from that but those who are replaced probably won’t.  If you’re old enough to remember it, think of what happened when mechanized agriculture drove down the cost of eggs, milk, corn, cotton and other products.   They became cheaper while previously successful farm families were devastated by agribusiness competition.  Today we can see  entire communities and families that are no longer self-sufficient because their jobs are gone.

The much-talked-about decline of the middle class is not primarily caused (and won’t be fixed) by tax or trade policies.  Instead, it is caused in large part by technologies that are cheaper and more productive than human labor.  This inevitable change brings opportunities along with threats.

What then, shall we do to prepare ourselves?

  1. Know the facts.  It’s particularly important for elected officials, educators, economic developers, city planners and business leaders to correctly anticipate the future and plan for it.  News media can improve public knowledge by researching  and reporting on these subjects.
  2. Understand the education and skills that will be necessary for success in the future economy.  I cringe when I hear someone say that, “not everyone needs to go to college.”  The statement is true of course, but it masks a more important truth.  Successful people will need to be able to learn at the college level.  Change will come at a pace that requires continuous learning of new information and skills.  The ability to read and learn at the level expected of a college freshman will be necessary for success in skilled trades, health occupations, and just about any field we can imagine.  It is a great disservice to children and parents to lead them to believe that they can succeed with less.
  3. Prepare community and regional infrastructure for success. For example, gigabit internet service will be more important than highways and railroads.  An increasing number of businesses require high-speed and high volume internet service at all of their locations. That’s often true of small startup businesses and may be true for in-home education opportunities.   Communities that lack gigabit service may be left behind as badly as those that lacked electricity, roads or railroads a century ago.
  4. Re-design public education and libraries to support lifelong learning so that all of us can continuously acquire new knowledge and skills as we need them, regardless of our economic status or geographic location.  We can discover ways to use the internet to deliver our finest instruction and most complete information to every American.

Issues of this kind should be on the agendas of national, state and local governments.  Instead we are arguing about voter IDs and bathroom privileges.  I don’t know all the answers, but I’m sure of one thing.  The people who find the right answers will be the ones who are asking the right questions.

 

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST YOU?

Try Googling  “Is the system rigged?”  I found:  “FBI Director Comey: I need the American people to know the system is not rigged”  “Trump on Clinton FBI announcement: The system is rigged” “71% of Americans believe economy is rigged”  “The System Didn’t Fail Eric Garner. It Worked How a Racist System Is Supposed to

The stories shared two disturbing qualities.  1)  Each is about an American institution.  2)  Each contended that some “system” is rigged.  Those headlines introduce angry stories that are backed by at least a few grains of truth.

The people who brought down our financial system avoided prosecution and most of them kept their ill-gotten gains. There is energy for deporting undocumented immigrants and their children but very little for prosecuting employers who hire them without mandatory benefits and wages.

The FBI Director didn’t recommend prosecution of a Secretary of State who was careless with national security information because, he says, she didn’t intend to break any law.  But when I unintentionally made an illegal right turn because I didn’t see the sign prohibiting it, I paid a fine.

We’ve seen people of African descent unjustifiably killed by police and the killers walked away.  Black youth are arrested for possession of marijuana in convenience store parking lots but campus police don’t arrest white college students for the same offense.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”  That one-liner isn’t funny anymore.  Unfairness, whether real or imagined, is a great danger because our freedom and democracy work well only when the great majority of us support the system and see it as fair.

It is the need for fairness, not fear of violence, that should drive our national conversation about these issues.  The violence often comes from one deranged soul (lone wolf) not from Advocacy organizations.   One enraged man (not associated with the Black Lives Matter movement) used their Dallas demonstration as an opportunity to kill five police officers.  One Christian extremist (not associated with the Right To Life movement) shot five officers and six civilians at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic.  The movements express the concerns of substantial numbers of Americans about laws or institutions that they see as unfair. Most don’t promote violence.

During a previous era of dramatic social and economic change, when family farms and the shops of cobblers and blacksmiths were giving way to mechanized industries, America saw similar unrest and even greater violence.  In 1882, Congress passed the  Chinese Exclusion Act banning all Chinese immigration because their cheap labor was perceived as driving wages down.  In 1887 there was a labor demonstration (The Haymarket Affair) in Chicago supporting an 8 hour work day.  Someone threw a bomb.  Gunfire followed.  Seven police and at least four civilians died.  In 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who blamed his unemployment on government policies.  In 1920, Wall Street was bombed, apparently by an activist who believed that the financial system was rigged against him.

Recent events are strikingly similar to our history.   Activists and political candidates promise to fix rigged systems with simplistic ideas: Exclude immigrants.  Build a wall.   Block trade treaties.  Hold police accountable.  Enforce law and order.  Many Americans believe that “other” Americans are rigging our institutions (the system) against them, and that does not bode well for our future.

Our nation’s systems for finance, justice, law enforcement, health care, education and others that compose our national identity must be perceived as fair for all of us. We’ll need genuine improvements in fairness, not just slogans and polite listening. Otherwise we will continue to experience demonstrations and rage from those who believe that systems are rigged against them.

After successful efforts to pass civil rights and voting rights laws, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. shifted his attention toward economic justice by addressing financial and wage issues affecting Hispanic and white workers as well as blacks. At the time of his assassination he was in Memphis supporting a strike for higher wages by public sanitation workers.  Nearly half a century later many issues of economic and racial justice have not yet been addressed. Now is the time to improve, not because of fear but because our national sensitivity to fairness has been raised.    It is said that “Most people don’t read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it.”  I can feel the wall now.

 

STICKS STONES AND STEREOTYPES

Election campaigns are under way and the name-calling season is open.  Names, labels and stereotypes can influence our opinions and our elections so it’s important to be aware them. Continue reading STICKS STONES AND STEREOTYPES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INDUSTRIAL MEGASITE

When the Randolph County Commissioners decided to develop an industrial megasite, I was cautiously optimistic because they are attempting to create much-needed economic and job growth.  Today it is alarming that our usually fiscally conservative Commissioners have committed $10 million – essentially all of the money available for economic development projects – without adequate planning. Continue reading ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INDUSTRIAL MEGASITE