The ramifications of wealth disparity: Robert Reich gets it

Robert Reich is one of my heroes. He gets it (unlike the delusional Tea Partiers who also were on National Public Radio [NPR] this morning, but more on those jokers later).

Here is a quote from his interview today on NPR. (Check out the link for the whole interview.)

"[The middle class] can't go deeper and deeper into debt. They can't work longer hours. They've exhausted all of their coping mechanisms," he says. "And people at the top are taking home so much that they are almost inevitably going to speculate in stocks or commodities or whatever the speculative vehicles are going to be. ... Unless we understand the relationship between the extraordinary concentration of income and wealth we have this in country and the failure of the economy to rebound, we are going to be destined for many, many years of high unemployment, anemic job recoveries and then periods of booms and busts that may even dwarf what we just had."

We want those 8 million jobs back

Don't forget, Ed Schultz's One Nation Working Together March is this Saturday, October 2, in Washington, DC.

The Nation recently posted a great background piece-- For Jobs, Justice, and Education. In a nutshell, the article talks about the plight of working families in America, tone-deaf Republican and Blue Dog Democrats who are fighting for the rich (instead of working for workers), and the rationale behind the march.

Here is a small excerpt.

"...we should be investing in rebuilding America, thereby helping to close the jobs gap, which will then help close the budget gap.

"Instead, as we careen toward a possible double-dip recession and a second round of devastating home foreclosures, the extreme right-wing media machine is desperately trying to discredit the idea that America's government can and should move aggressively to create more jobs...

"Nothing they say should persuade our leaders to throw America's working families under the bus. We are in the middle of the biggest economic crisis in half a century. Through its negligence and recklessness, Wall Street has already forced a brutal austerity program on Main Street. The role of America's government is to mitigate its effects and reverse the damage, not to make things worse by heaping suffering on top of suffering. This is not the time to abandon schools, shut down clinics, ignore crumbling infrastructure and forego job creation. This is not the time to take more away from families and communities that are already losing so much. We don't need a public austerity program on top of the private sector–imposed austerity that we are already enduring.

"But some members of Congress apparently think they should focus on closing the federal budget gap, even if it means letting millions more American families tumble. They are mistaken. America's workers find themselves in a deep hole. You don't cut your way out of a hole. You grow your way out of a hole. We can afford to invest more in America's long-term success. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We should not be giving billions of dollars to companies like Halliburton abroad, while closing hospitals at home.

"...the American people finally will be able to choose between two movements: one that wants to demagogue problems and divide us, and another that wants to promote solutions and unite America."

What's up with Chase Bank's website?

Officially, J. P. Morgan Chase's online banking website went down in the early hours of Tuesday, September 14-- affecting 16.6 million customers, including me. (Well, my employer, actually, since my money is in a local credit union.)

I have not been able to sign on to our small business Chase Bank account all week, and it's now Thursday-- day 4 of my personal Chase outage.

What's up with that?

Hey, Chase, I'm sure there are thousands of unemployed webmasters and web security experts out there. Maybe you need to hire more staff? Or different staff? Or English-speaking American staff? Or pay them better?

Get it together!

P.S., Chase, I don't believe that you don't know what caused this.

P.S.S., Also, while I have your attention, you need to hire more people for your "customer service" telephone lines. I have called you multiple times, and your "customer service" lines either ring and ring or are busy. Again, there are plenty of people looking for work. Hire someone! You obviously need more competent staff.

Who writes Tucson's real estate development contracts? Cuz I don't think they know what they are doing (Part 1)

I have lived in Tucson for almost 30 years, and repeatedly, I have seen the City of Tucson-- and the taxpayers-- get screwed on real estate development.

I am not a high-powered lawyer, but I have written and signed a few contracts in my day. My multiple life experiences lead me to ponder one question: Who writes the real estate development contracts for the City of Tucson? Why do I ask? Because-- regardless of the deal-- it seems as if the city (AKA "we") end up with the short straw.

The latest example of this-- the Vista Sierra Apartments in midtown-- was featured in the local section of Sunday's Arizona Daily Star.

The article is a bit confusing about ownership of the now-closed, low-rent apartment complex saying, "For now, at least, Vista Sierra belongs to the Metropolitan Housing Corp., an independent nonprofit created by the city's Metropolitan Housing Commission. It bought the complex in 1996 from the original developer."

So, is this owned by the city or not?

The problem is the Vista Sierra apartments were purchased 14 years ago with the same basic cooling system problem that closed it down this summer.

This is a very expensive problem, since, according to the Star, "The chiller's pipes are in the building's foundation. [yikes!] They're hard to get to, expensive to repair. The fix will cost a million dollars - nearly half what the assessor estimates the place is worth."

When I bought my historic house in 2004, I paid for a home inspection, so I knew-- in great detail-- that I was buying a very cute 1933 house with problems (AKA an adorable, old dump).

Did the city commission a "home inspection" on the Vista Sierra Apartments? If they did, why the heck did they buy it? Really, this sounds like a sweetheart deal for the original developer.

"The [Metropolitan Housing] corporation is almost entirely government dependent, from subsidized rents to federal and local grants, including two recent city grants totaling $133,000. And it's the city - which boarded the windows and helped residents move [emphasis added] - that will probably ride to the rescue to clean up this mess one day. The city is broke, but it's HUD's preferred buyer," the Star reports.

Maybe I'm a dunce, but if the city owns this dump, how can the city be the preferred buyer? This sounds like a scam to me.

This article says that Metropolitan Housing Corp. defaulted on the mortgage for this property, but it also says the apartments are "almost entirely government dependent."

"'We don't have a pot of funds ready to buy this property, so that's clearly a challenge,' said Albert Elias, Tucson's housing and community development director. 'I think the only way that this could work is if we worked in partnership with some other (agencies),'" again quoting the Star.

So, why would we re-buy this dump that we shouldn't have purchased in the first place?

Again, I ask: "Who writes the real estate development contracts for the City of Tucson?"

Watch for more articles in this series...

Send 3-year-olds to school? The French do...

All-day kindergarten was one of the victims of Republican budget cuts this year. Ignoring the scientific research on the benefits (1,2) of early education, right-wingers in the Legislature and the Goldwater Institute said there was no data to prove it. (Ironically, this "no supporting data" argument was ignored when they funded abstinence only education, but that's a story for another time.)

Repeatedly Arizona's short-sighted Legislature has chosen to ignore our most vulnerable citizens by cutting education funding and thus forcing teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, shorter school years, and school closings. Arizona actually spends less per student than it did in 1987.

The crux of the problem is that Arizona's Republican Governor and Legislature see public education as an unnecessary expense-- not an investment in the state's future.

When compared to other states, our rugged individualism has earned us the #50 slot in education funding and the #5 slot in jobs that don't require a high school education. When compared to European countries, Arizona's public education efforts are paltry, at best.

Today, National Public Radio (NPR) aired a story about early childhood education in France, where all 3- and 4-year-olds attend public school.

"Society as a whole [not just students and parents] benefits from this," said one French education official. Early childhood education is "not an expense but an investment."

France's Ecole Maternal -- a nationwide, state-supported preschool-- gives all French children the same start in life-- regardless of income, gender, race or religion. According to the NPR reporter, the French view the Ecole Maternal as a symbol of their Republican Revolution, which toppled the French monarchy and brought equal rights and equal treatment for all citizens (including women).

In the US, preschool is a patchwork, and the determining factor is money. People who can afford it send their children to high-priced preschools (which offer a variety of stimulating experiences), hire in-home nannies, and/or have at least one stay-at-home parent.

Children growing up in middle and lower class homes have limited choices-- low-cost preschools and day cares; preschool scholarships; care by family members or unlicensed baby-sitters; Head Start. For these families, all-day kindergarten helped their children catch up, and now it's gone.

I know that the do-it-for-the-children, pro-education argument falls on deaf ears in the Arizona Legislature, but let's look at this as capitalists. How can the US -- and particularly Arizona-- compete economically inn the global marketplace with an uneducated workforce?

Don't get me wrong. I am not promoting a government requirement that would force parents to send all 3- and 4-year-olds to school. I am advocating for equal opportunities in education -- and life. Arizona needs an attitude adjustment; we need more "liberty, equality, and fraternity" and less "I got mine; screw you."

Arizona voters approved a new sales tax to fund education in May. We need to make sure the Legislature spends these funds wisely.

Drug Wars: Follow the Money

Immigration, violence, drug policy, and world economics...it may seem odd to lump these four issues together, but I believe they all are connected.

In order to regulate drug use, US law defines what is a drug and outlines legal vs. illegal drugs and over-the-counter vs. prescription drugs.

Legal drugs happen to be those that are manufactured in first world countries—like the US and Europe. These include alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs. Except for a few US pot farmers and designer drugs like methamphetamines and crack which are manufactured locally, most illegal drugs are manufactured in third world countries. These include marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Interesting observation, huh?

If you look at the issue of legal vs. illegal drugs, the designations have nothing to do with public health or death rates. Smoking cigarettes kills more people worldwide than anything else—period—yet cigarettes are legal, freely available, and pretty much uncontrolled. Efforts by public health advocates and the Food and Drug Administration under the Clinton Administration to classify tobacco as a drug were thwarted by the Republican Congress. Although all of the drugs listed above are addictive, the nicotine in cigarettes is one of the most highly addictive substances.

Since the legal vs. illegal designation is not related to health or addiction, what is it related to? My theory is that economics and geo-politics play a role. Pharmaceutical companies and illegal drug manufacturers are in direct competition for the hearts, minds, and wallets of the addicted.

A year ago or so, National Public Radio reported increase heroin use in small towns in America-- areas that had never seen this in the past. How did this big city vice get a toe-hold in the heartland? The answer is capitalism + addiction. Heroin had become a cheap alternative for rural folks who were addicted to Oxycontin, a prescription pain-killer. Capitalistic, illegal drug dealers were undercutting the pharmaceutical companies' prices. Both heroin and Oxycontin are analgesics. Oxycontin addicts-- particularly those who had lost there health insurance-- were turning to heroin to feed their habits and alleviate chronic pain. There are multiple other examples of legal and illegal drugs competing for market share. Medical marijuana competes with prescription drugs that also help cancer patients handle pain. Recreational marijuana competes with alcohol and some prescription drugs for users who just want to mellow out and competes with tobacco for users who enjoy the act of smoking.

From a public health standpoint, what would happen if marijuana—and perhaps other currently illegal drugs—were legalized and taxed in the US? Would the death rates from drug use increase? Probably not -- if we get cigarette smoking and obesity under control at the same time. Would marijuana use increase? Maybe but usage most likely would be as price-sensitive as cigarette usage is now. Would medicinal use of marijuana increase? Probably because it would be available to patients and other uses would be discovered. Would drug violence in the US and Mexico decrease? Hopefully-- if we can also control the flow of guns back and forth across the border.

What would happen economically if marijuana were legalized for medical and recreational use and taxed, as alcohol and tobacco are now? First of all, tax revenues would increase. Drug dealers would lose a major income stream. Mexico, other 3rd world countries, and some areas of the US would gain a major cash crop. Legalization of marijuana won’t eliminate illegal immigration and drug-related violence in the US, but I predict it would have an impact. Mexicans are coming to the US for jobs because their economic system is broken. A big cash crop that has a ready market in the US and worldwide would be a boon to Mexico and many other poor countries and will make living in these countries economically viable.

OK, so, I know that marijuana legalization won’t eliminate the immigration "problem" completely in the US, but to what extent do we really want to eliminate it? Remember those aging Baby Boomers? As they-- we-- retire and eventually die, the US will need workers to replace them. We will have a labor shortage in the future without immigrants and their children.

Now that the dark days of the Bush Administration are over, I'm glad that people in the government are looking at drug policy. I'm also heartened by the efforts of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The war on drugs has not worked-- just as Prohibition didn't work in the 1930s. Illegal drug use and drug-related violence have increased since Nixon declared the war. The drug war is a failed experiment and has been allowed to continue for too long.

Originally published on Muse Views, May 8, 2009.