The lessons of President Clinton

American history has gone through several major cycles where parties have changed. Parties have flipped which regions they dominate, the Overton Window has changed substantially in various directions, and the impact of both the President and Speaker of the House has changed dramatically over time.

His Presidency also has a lot of lessons for our ongoing Presidential Election on what is likely to happen in 2021-2023 assuming a Democrat wins the election.

When people discuss major presidents, certain names always come up, Washington, Lincoln, and both of the Roosevelts are usually the top names historians list as the most important Presidents in American history.


Presidents can both follow the lead of previous presidents, do various levels of impacts on our policies, and lead major realignments in American history. Our system has the Electoral College which is unique in the world. Such are the consequences of being the prototype.

There have been several types of electoral college maps over history, and how various regions have voted.

As time goes on, parties have various levels of support which goes up and down.
I have written about the Electoral College a lot in the past, but today I want to focus on one President in particular, and that is President Clinton.

Before we understand President Clinton we need to understand the political environment as it existed when he became President. Republicans had controlled the Presidency for 19 of the previous 23 years in American history. Richard Nixon started the drug war, and President Ford did as well a job as anyone could given the legacy he was inheriting. President Carter was stonewalled by congress, preventing most of his reforms from occurring. The real challenges President Clinton faced came from two of our most corrupt Presidents in American history, those of Reagan and Bush. He started with an economic policy which moved money from the working class to the 1%, he committed treason during the Iran-Contra affair, he accelerated Nixon's War on Drugs, crashed our economy during the first term, and was supported by the media all the way through, through a policy of charm and hiding information on the corrupt actions he was committing which came out later. He spurred the empowerment of the righteous right, and hurt American culture. Bush was similar to Ford in that his Presidency was not wrecked by scandals as much as his predecessor, and a number of good pieces of legislation but he also pardoned many criminals from the administration of which he was second in command. Neither man deserves to be well remembered by history.

The Clinton presidency started with the first Democratic Trifecta in 12 years. This led to many very important reforms, the Family and Medical Leave Act, National Voter Registration Act, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Violence Against Women Act, and Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Compared to any congress under the Reagan or Bush administrations this was a monumental year. The most important bill of course was Hillarycare, which failed because of opposition which was well organized to get congressional Democrats onboard. It's a complex story, and deserves its own article. Despite the failure of Hillarycare, I do believe that it was still a very successful term in other respects. After that session however, Clinton signed into law many laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which he should have vetoed.

In terms of long term impact, I think the first Session under President Clinton was a success, and he did make America a more free country in the first two years. His remaining 6 years were an absolute disaster. There were many times where he signed laws which he should have vetoed, and by signing almost everything which came across his desk he significantly reduced his power,  giving Congress basically complete control. This is despite the fact that the Democrats won more votes in the 1996 House election than Republicans by a small margin. If he had taken this and forced Gingrich to play hardball he could have increased turnout among Democratic Voters during an era when the map was quickly evolving.

One important part to recognize about the transition which was happening in the 1990s was the elimination of Southern Democrats. In his first two sessions, the Democrats controlled a large number of seats from former Confederate states.

1992 election results

2002 election results

2012 election results

We have seen a near elimination of Southern Democrats from the House since Clinton came to office, and the parties have established very clear lines which most candidates followed. This is very different from when I was born.

In terms of President Clinton's actions, I believe his first two terms paved the way for President Obama to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010, through the lessons learned. It's failure meant they failed to galvanize Democratic voters and enraged Republican voters so that Gingrich could make his Contract with America in 1994. His remaining 6 years in office were I believe a lost opportunity. If he had vetoed more legislation it would have forced the Republicans to compromise with him, and it would have galvanized Democratic Voters in 2000 showing a clear choice between their two options. It would have also helped galvanize voters in the House elections which would have improved his chances at having more Democrats in 1998.

The real barrier in 1998 was the same as what Obama dealt with, where due to gerrymandering the Republicans were able to pick up a clear majority (over 50% of the seats) with not even a plurality (more than any other party) of the vote. This creation of mostly safe seats benefits rural areas while creating a disadvantage for the majority of Americans who live in urban areas. This significantly reduced the ability of Presidents Clinton and Obama to pass the legislation they both campaigned and pushed for.

We are likely to see a continuation of this pattern in 2023 after the first midterms from whichever candidate succeeds Trump. The Republican machine which consists of Fox News and other right-wing channels is going to push against the Democratic Congress in the 2022 elections, focusing on swing districts. On top of this, many publications pandering to liberal-leaning voters are going to be rattling on about how they didn't get Medicare for all passed, and are shills because we don't live in Utopia passed. Jacobin is one such example. Both of these extreme publications are designed to get people who agree with the idea that everyone should have high quality health care and oppose tyrannical governments such as Putin to convince them that whoever wins is not as liberal as they claim and will continue to whitewash foreign despots. The goal will not be to get Democratic voters to vote for the Republican, but for them to abstain altogether.

Now, a few things are different about the midterms in 3 years. Democrats took a lot of important Governorships a year ago, and this is going to significantly improve our chances of having fair congressional and legislative maps.

Current US Governor affiliation

Eliminating gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to give Democrats about a 12 seat advantage as opposed to the map which Obama had to fight throughout his Presidency. This might make enough of a difference in 2022, which remains to be seen.

Ultimately however, we need to reform our election systems to eliminate gerrymandering, which is what FairVote is working on.

Conclusion

1. Clinton did a decent job when he had a trifecta.
2. Clinton failed to stand up for his values as much as he could when facing a Republican congress.
3. The next President will likely start their term with a divided Congress.
4. A President facing an obstinate congress needs to stand up for their values, otherwise they risk alienating the voters they need in order to get a majority in Congress or be succeeded by a President of their party.
5. Gerrymandering can significantly weaken the power of any Democratic President.
6. Clinton served during a time of enormous political change where the parties were solidifying behind national platforms in a way like never before.

Predictions for the next President

1. The next President will have to work with a Republican Senate for at least their first session.
2. There will not be a major health care reform bill in the 117th congress because of Republican opposition in the Senate.
3. Mitch McConnell will likely continue to oppose basically every bill.
4. There are several very good potential pickups for the Senate in 2022, particularly Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If Democrats can win these three states we might have a slim majority in the Senate of 53 or 54 seats in 2023, which will make it possible to pass legislation.
5. The current Democratic debates are projecting for a fantasy world where they would have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This is unfortunately unrealistic. We will need a candidate who is able to work with Republicans as much as possible to get good legislation passed, bad legislation blocked, and get voters excited so that we can take the Senate in 2022.

The biggest lesson of all from the Presidencies of Presidents Clinton and Obama is that we need to reform our election system to eliminate gerrymandering to ensure that every vote counts. No Representative should have no serious competition for our seat.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

2020 elections, 1 year out

We are currently in declaration season for the upcoming elections in 2020. Elections are going to decide state legislatures, several governoships, the entire House, and 1/3 of the Senate. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this election. Here are my thoughts:

President

We have the best slate of candidates for President we could possibly have. In terms of experience, we have a former vice president (who honestly shouldn't be nominated for his foot in mouth syndrome, the only thing going for him is people recognize his name), 8 senators, 3 governors, and several representatives. 

Senate

When it comes to the Senate elections, we need to pick up at least 3 seats in order to have a fighting chance. The 4 states with Republican Senators up for election which the least favorable Cook Partisan Voting Index scores for them are Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia.

I prefer candidate who are currently in office, which means they have the opportunity to propose legislation right now addressing the issues of today, and then with that information someone who is able to pass legislation regardless of the political climate will be my preferred pick, such as Senator Barack Obama in 2008 which helped propel him to rival Senator Hillary Clinton in the primary almost out of nowhere. Someone with a powerful speaking voice who can speak eloquently and clearly will be preferred to someone who has a weak stage presence. Someone who has not lost before is preferred to someone who has lost elections in the past.

Iowa

In Iowa Joni Ernst is up for election. She is the 10th most Conservative Senator in one of the most moderate of States, so with the right candidate we have a really good chance.

• I think Rob Sand has a really good shot if he chooses to run from what I can see. He is well spoken, calm, and will do a good job as Senator. he won in a very close election, and if he continues to do good work as the State Auditor I think he would have a good shot at winning the Senate seat. From what I can see from the PBS station it looks like he is making good progress at prosecuting corruption this will play well in the Midwest. He has a very calm presence on stage.
• Abby Finkenauer is an advocate for better broadband for rural Iowa, and has been fighting to improve access to health care in rural America. She has good stage presence with a powerful effective speaking voice. and would do a good job as a Senator.
• Rob Hogg has a published book on climate change, and with a law degree could be a formidable challenger.

Any one of these three candidates would do a good job. I think Finkenauer could win if she runs.

North Carolina

The incumbent only won by 48.8% of the vote in 2014, so I believe this is one of our best shots at winning in 2020. He opposes net neutrality, and is dismissive of the Mueller investigation. He needs to go.

• Erica Smith has 4 years experience as a State Senator in North Carolina, with a focus on education, expanding opportunities to rural areas, and improving access to jobs. She could win.

Arizona

Arizona is weird because it is a special election with an incumbent Republican who has already lost against the other Senator in Arizona. The opponent who is declared is Gabby Giffords widow, astronaut Mark Kelly, who has a really good chance. Katie Hobbs might run, and she has already won a statewide election as Secretary of State. I think this will be a close election but if the Democrats reach out properly and hold McSally responsible for her support of the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay and voting against accessing Trump's tax returns, we could have a good shot of taking Arizona.

Georgia

Scott Holcomb  has been mentioned as a potential candidate in Georgia. As a sitting State Senator since 2011 he has worked on legislation which passes which helps victims of sexual assault in a Republican legislature. If he runs, he could win.

South Carolina

• Jaime Harrison would be a great candidate, but his website is bland and he has no elected experience. He however does have experience leading the Democratic Party, so that can help him.
• Mayor Stephen Benjamin of Columbia has a decade of elected experience, has experience with the NAACP. He was selected to speak at the DNC Convention in 2016 with an excellent speaking voice. he could be a formidable challenger to Lindsay Graham.

Maine

Sara Gideon, the Speaker of the House, is running and she can win.

Colorado

Former Governor John Hickenlooper is running, and will hopefully win.

References

• https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2018/senate/ideology

If we win just half of these seats than we will have a Federal trifecta in 2021.

House

The Democrats are playing the defensive game for the House next year of course. We can lose as many as 17 seats and still have a majority. Current projections put the Democrats with a slight majority in 2021, which should be enough to pass legislation.

Governors

There are two possible pickups in Vermont and New Hampshire in 2020. In Vermont the Lieutenant Governor is a reasonable pick, and if he wins the Democrats will have a trifecta.

In New Hampshire, the mayor of Manchester and majority leader of the Senate are both viable candidates who could win. This will deliver a Democratic Trifecta.

State Legislatures

Arizona

Republicans have a 2 seat majority in the House, the closest margin by percent in the country. All 60 Representative are up for election every two years. The three closest districts were in 20, 6, and 23. 20 is just northeast of Glendale and Peoria, 6 goes from Flagstaff to Phoenix, and 23 is in Northeast Greater Phoenix.

Michigan

Michigan has a 6 seat Republican majority out of 110 seats in the House. Districts 104,38,110, and 61 are the closest margins which will give Democrats control of the House following next year's legislative election. 104 is at Grand Traverse, 38 is in the Detroit suburbs, 110 is the northwestern most district, and 61 is South Kalamazoo. Democrats need 4 pickups to have a majority.

Minnesota

Minnesota currently has a Democratic House and a 3 seat Republican majority in the Senate. The Democrats have a good chance to regain the Senate in districts 47, 37, 54, 14, 5, 25, 26, and 35 where they won over 45% of the vote in 2018.

Virginia

Virginia is technically having elections this November, but it is part of the same two year cycle, so I'll discuss it here.

Virginia has a 2 seat majority in each house for the Republican Party and a Democratic Governor.

There are 6 competitive seats in the Senate where Northram won in 2017, and have Republican legislators. There are 12 such districts in the House as well. Each of these need to be targeted and have as good candidates as the local parties can find who are involved in local organizations. The Democratic Party could easily pick up a Trifecta in Virginia in 4 months.

Every other state in the Union which has a Republican majority has over a 10% lead, so unless if this cycle has a particularly large landslide year, I do not expect any big changes.

This leaves us with not very many places for progress which will fully flip a chamber, but some important places to make a difference building towards the future.

Trifectas post-2020

I expect most states will be the same.

Democrats will maintain trifectas in Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine.

Republicans will keep their trifectas in Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Current divided governments will continue in Montana, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Louisiana.

Democrats could pick up trifectas in Virginia, Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Republicans could potentially lose their trifecta in Arizona.

Republicans will likely gain a trifecta in Louisiana.

The total trifecta party score post 2020 will likely be:

• Democrats: 18
• Republicans: 23
• Divided government:9

This is a really important step in the right direction.

Ballot Initiatives

Elections

• Alaska is going to have a Ranked-Choice voting initiative
• Arizona is going to have an automatic voter registration initiative
• Arizona has a campaign contribution transparency initiative
• California is going to have a Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Florida has two initiatives for a top-two open primary, one for federal office, and one for state office
• Massachusetts is going to have a Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Missouri is going to have a Ranked Choice Voting Initiative
• Missouri is also going to have a Proportional Representation Initiative

There are a lot of exciting elections related initiatives, with 5 ranked voting initiatives, so I expect we are going to make a lot of progress.

 References

• https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_state_legislatures%27_partisan_trend
•  https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/historic_state_legislative_election_results
•  

How to get Visa-free access to the United States

The United States is one of the least welcoming countries in the world based on our visa policy. Only Canadians, Palauans, Marshall Islanders, and Micronesians can come here without some sort of visa. Everyone else needs to either preregister for $14 or pay $140 for a ten year visa. Most people need to pay the $140.

I think this is ridiculous because many countries which require visas are safer than we are, and we are really not protecting ourselves by making German tourists pre-register before they invade with socks and sandals.

All jokes aside, this should be a much bigger diplomatic issue. There are a few options for countries to reciprocate. Some countries usually will charge the citizens of the other country the same amount before abolishing visas, but I think there is a better way to do this.

When most Americans travel abroad off the continent we will most likely travel to The European Union. These countries are our allies, and safer than us by practically every metric. There is absolutely no reason to have visas for German and French tourists. I count a visa as any document which a tourist must pre-register for and pay money before they arrive, whether there is a 99.9% approval rate or not. The European Union should negotiate with my country to get visa-free access for their citizens by making a demand.

Either all Schengen Treaty citizens get visa free access to the United States,or the following laws will trigger.

1. Americans will have to pay $140 for a 10 year visa to visit the Schengen Area effective immediately. This will be an on-line application. Each and every applicant will be given a message that this is reciprocity, and if they want visa-free access to call their member of congress which the EU will provide for them on the page.
2. Elected government officials must pay $1000 for a single entry 14 day visa to visit the European Union or Schengen Area effective immediately.
3. The United States President and Secretary of State are banned from entering the European Union or Schengen Area effective immediately.
4. Ambassadors must pay $3 per day to remain in the European Union. Starting 1 January 2021 Ambassadors must pay $1000 per day to remain in the European Union.

Or the United States can give EU and Schengen Area members visa-free entry.

Tourist visa fees will be refunded after visa-free access is granted.

This would probably work.

Unfortunately, the European Union is not doing this plan. Instead, under the leadership of Juncker they are deciding to go with a similar plan to the US, Canada, and Australia of having low-cost visas for tourists starting the beginning of 2021. They said themselves back when the US started charging for ETA that the idea that it would increase tourism is ludicrous. However, 8 years later they end up doing the same thing which will not help their tourism industry. It will not keep Europeans safe, neither will it increase goodwill between countries. Their system is even worse because applicants will need to announce which country they intend to enter in and will not be allowed to enter in other countries in the Schengen Area. This means that unless if they see sense before then that people will be required to always to fly through one country and then transfer, which will hurt tourism.

I personally have family in Germany, Finland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Saying I MUST always enter through Germany to go to Finland for a three year period is inconvenient, and doesn't benefit anyone.

The system we have now where we present our passport when we arrive and get a stamp is as much as we need (probably more than we need actually) in terms of safety on both sides of the Atlantic relative to both countries. ETIAS is also not just being targeted at the US, Canada, and Australia who have similar absolutely ridiculous systems.

More than this, pre-registration like ESTA, ETA, and ETIAS push refugees out of sight and out of mind, enabling fascists. With the EU, Canada, USA, and Australia implementing such systems, the number of places where refugees can safely go to avoid persecution grow low in number. These programs are not being targeted at countries like Saudi Arabia which would be a real security risk given their attacks on other countries with their paramilitaries, but instead between free and developed countries, where they simply do not belong.

There also isn't nearly enough research on the impact of such systems on tourism or safety, meaning they are not making us safer, and the government has failed to provide any proof that they actually keep terrorists from crossing borders.

We need proof that these are not working, and to abolish them as fast as politically possible. Europeans need to vote out EPP, Australians need to vote in Labour, and Americans need to vote in Democrats. Then a Democratic Party, Labour Party, Liberal, S&D alliance can work on ending visas between the EU, Canada, United States, and Australia since the far-right coalition has failed to provide any evidence that these programs actually keep people safe.

Wir sind ein Volk.

Appendix:
The ESTA was funded to support The Brand USA, a private-public partnership funded by ESTA visa fees to advertise tourism to the United States. They state on their website: "As one of the best levers for driving economic growth, international travel to the United States currently supports over two million American jobs (directly and indirectly) and benefits virtually every sector of the U.S. economy."

Sounds like a self-aware wolf to me... because they are literally funded by a program which is proven to reduce tourism to the United States...

This is just too rich.

Bad investment advice

I was doing some reading this morning and was thinking about defined benefit vs. defined contribution plans and trying to find some actual numbers from a source which would know what they were talking about to show some real numbers behind which decision people should make.

The article I turned to first was from Forbes, which is in my view is a fairly reliable magazine for financial issues. The first yellow flag was a lack of charts plotting how fast someone's investment would grow, and not showing their work regarding inflation. As I read through I found a glaring error.

The article assumed that someone would only deposit 8% of their income from a match from the employer. But employer matching contributions only occur if you have already contributed that much from your salary. It is usually a dollar for dollar match to your contribution for your retirement.

Now, if you were only contributing 4% of your salary (accounting for inflation of course) then the numbers in the article were correct, and you would only end up with $22,000 of retirement income in 25 years (the short time frame this article was based on) which is clearly not enough. This is not what the article stated however, and only depositing 4% of your income in retirement is a terrible decision.

The golden rule of thumb for savings is simple. You should save for retirement as early as you can, diversify across many industries, and invest as much as you can every year. Contributing only 4% of your salary to your retirement plan is utterly foolish, especially if you have paid down your debt and have a Home Equity Line of Credit on your home.

Once we readjust their assumption that you are only depositing 8% of your income in total in your retirement plan, and account for inflation, continuing their 5% after inflation investment rate (which is approximately the 8% market rate of the S&P 500 times 2% inflation), you will end up with $749,529 in today's dollars, or $1.2 million without adjusting for inflation, which will provide you with $58,000 of income in today's dollars. This is almost double what you would receive from the annuity they are using as a comparison. This is also only after working for 25 years.

The article was written to make it look like a hard decision, but in reality, every defined benefit plan I have ever looked at has come in far short of a defined contribution plan, even before accounting for accidents which can occur, ending your life, making defined benefit plans disappear, unlike defined contribution plans which are inheritable upon your death. I have yet to find a traditional pension plan which performs well in comparison.

No matter what age you pass away, the plan with a balance will always win, whether you die at 70 or 100.

Be careful about the media you read, it can really mislead you if you don't read carefully. Even fairly well reputed magazines can sometimes make glaring errors.

Year	Salary	Deposit	Balance	Inflation	Real value	Interest
1	$80,000.00	$12,800.00	$12,800.00	1	$12,800.00
2	$82,400.00	$13,184.00	$27,008.00	0.98	$26,467.84
3	$84,872.00	$13,579.52	$42,748.16	0.9604	$41,055.33
4	$87,418.16	$13,986.91	$60,154.92	0.941192	$56,617.33
5	$90,040.70	$14,406.51	$79,373.82	0.92236816	$73,211.89
6	$92,741.93	$14,838.71	$100,562.44	0.9039207968	$90,900.48
7	$95,524.18	$15,283.87	$123,891.30	0.885842380864	$109,748.17
8	$98,389.91	$15,742.39	$149,544.99	0.86812553324672	$129,823.83
9	$101,341.61	$16,214.66	$177,723.25	0.850763022581785	$151,200.37
10	$104,381.85	$16,701.10	$208,642.21	0.83374776213015	$173,954.97
11	$107,513.31	$17,202.13	$242,535.71	0.817072806887547	$198,169.34
12	$110,738.71	$17,718.19	$279,656.76	0.800731350749796	$223,929.94
13	$114,060.87	$18,249.74	$320,279.04	0.7847167237348	$251,328.32
14	$117,482.70	$18,797.23	$364,698.60	0.769022389260104	$280,461.39
15	$121,007.18	$19,361.15	$413,235.63	0.753641941474902	$311,431.71
16	$124,637.39	$19,941.98	$466,236.47	0.738569102645404	$344,347.85
17	$128,376.52	$20,540.24	$524,075.63	0.723797720592496	$379,324.75
18	$132,227.81	$21,156.45	$587,158.13	0.709321766180646	$416,484.04
19	$136,194.64	$21,791.14	$655,921.92	0.695135330857033	$455,954.50
20	$140,280.48	$22,444.88	$730,840.55	0.681232624239892	$497,872.43
21	$144,488.90	$23,118.22	$812,426.02	0.667607971755094	$542,382.09
22	$148,823.57	$23,811.77	$901,231.87	0.654255812319992	$589,636.19
23	$153,288.27	$24,526.12	$997,856.55	0.641170696073592	$639,796.38
24	$157,886.92	$25,261.91	$1,102,946.98	0.628347282152121	$693,033.74
25	$162,623.53	$26,019.76	$1,217,202.50	0.615780336509078	$749,529.37	$58,763.10

Does the EU work?

List of wars involving France and one of its neighbors in continental Europe, or the United Kingdom in reverse chronological order:

• 1945: World War II ends (74 years and counting)
• 1939: World War II begins
• 1919: World War I ends (20 years)
• 1914: World War I begins
• 1871: Franco-Prussian War ends (43 years)
• 1870: Franco-Prussian War begins
• 1859: Second Italian War of Independence (11 years)
• 1839: Pastry War (20 years)
• 1831: Belgian Revolution ends (8 years)
• 1830: Belgian Revolution begins
• 1823: Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis (7 years)
• 1815: Napoleonic Wars end (8 years)
• 1803: Napoleonic Wars begin
• 1801: War of the Oranges (2 years)
• 1783: American Revolutionary War ends (18 years)
• 1778: France enters the American Revolutionary War
• 1769: French Conquest of Corsica (9 years)
• 1763: Seven Years' War ends (6 years)
• 1756: Seven Years' War begins
• 1748: War of the Austrian Succession ends (8 years)
• 1740: War of the Austrian Succession begins
• 1735: War of the Polish Succession ends (5 years)
• 1733: War of the Polish Succession begins
• 1720: War of the Quadruple Alliance ends (13 years)
• 1718: War of the Quadruple Alliance begins
• 1714: War of the Spanish Succession ends (4 years)
• 1701: War of the Spanish Succession begins
• 1697: Nine Years War ends (4 years)
• 1688: Nine Years War begins
• 1684: War of the Reunions ends (4 years)
• 1678: Franco-Dutch war end
• 1668: War of Devolution ends (10 years)
• 1667: War of Devolution begins
• 1659: Franco-Spanish War ends, continuation of the Thirty Years War (8 years)
• 1618: Thirty Years War begins
• 1583: War of the Portuguese Succession ends (35 years)
• 1598: French Wars of Religion end
• 1580: War of the Portuguese Succession begins
• 1562: French Wars of Religion begin
• 1559: Italian Wars end (3 years)
• 1494: Italian Wars begin
• 1488: Mad War ends (6 years)
• 1485: Mad War begins
• 1482: War of the Burgundian Succession ends (3 years)
• 1477: War of the Burgundian Succession begins
• 1453: Hundred Years' War ends (24 years)
• 1337: Hundred Years' War begins
• 1326: Invasion of England (9 years)
• 1324: War of Saint-Sardos (2 years)
• 1305: Franco-Flemish War ends (19 years)
• 1302: War of the Sicilian Vespers ends
• 1297: Franco-Flemish War begins
• 1282: War of the Sicilian Vespers begins
• 1243: Saintonge War ends (39 years)
• 1242: Saintonge War begins
• 1222: War of the Succession of Champagne ends (20 years)
• 1217: First Barons' War ends
• 1216: War of the Succession of Champagne begins
• 1215: First Baron's War begins
• 1214: Anglo-French War ends (1 year)
• 1213: Anglo-French War begins
• 1204: Normandy Campaigns end (9 years)
• 1202: Normandy Campaigns begin
• 1199: Anglo-French War ends (3 years)
• 1193: Anglo-French War begins
• 1174: Revolt of 1173-1174 (19 years)
• 1173: Revolt of 1173-1174 begins

The longest periods of peace between France and its European neighbors hence  are:

• The current period (74 years and counting)
• Post-Franco Prussian War to World War I (43 years)
• War of the Portuguese Succession to Thirty Years War (35 years)

These are the only periods in time since 1150 where France has had more than 30 years of peace with its neighbors, and in 9 years our current period will be twice that of the second period.

Most of the wars France fought involved England, in the Middle Ages this started in 1066 with the Norman invasion of England which was the first time that the King of England also held significant land on the continent. This would remain true until the Italian War of 1551-1559 which would result in the United Kingdom losing Calais. Animosity would continue due to the French-Scottish alliance until King James VI of Scotland was the next in line for the British throne in 1603, and then the crowns were merged in 1660 when the Scottish Parliament was resolved. Disputes continued revolving the Netherlands and the succession of various monarchies during the era before the American Revolution. The last bullets between the United Kingdom and France as part of a declared were shot in 1815

Idea for European history eras
This is off-topic, but reading about European History, I think it would make sense to make a better timeline, and here is my attempt based on the most important events in European history:

• Fall of communism: 1991
• End of World War II, start of Cold War, beginning of European integration: 1945
• World War II: 1939
• Interwar era, Democracy vs Fascism/Communism: 1919
• Formation of Germany: 1871
• End of Napoleon: 1815
• American Independence: 1781
• Columbus lands in America: 1492
• Byzantine Empire falls: 1453

We are currently in the longest period of peace in European history, which is growing by the day. I believe this is caused by the standard predictions of the Liberal Paradigm in International Relations, based on the integration of trade and establishment of mechanisms for dialogue and discussions between countries so they can discuss problems before they blow up into armed conflict. The interdependence of the European economy is so strong that the cost of going to war is far greater than any potential benefits of going to war. There is no need to go to war for any material gain, since they are part of a true free trade area, and the peoples of each country may freely visit each other, growing people to people relationships.

This leads me to the conclusion that the European Union does indeed work and has succeeded in his goal. We should all support this great institution and the formation of similar institutions around the world which are designed to foster trade and peace between nations.

Characteristics of American homicide

As I keep working on studying the relations of which countries do and do not have open borders, the one variable in the United States which keeps sticking out is our very high homicide rate relative to other countries. It is the only variable where we are consistently doing worse than every member of the Schengen Area. Our corruption perceptions index, ease of doing business index, and our press freedom are all in line with member states of the European Union. However, our homicide rate is significantly higher than that of any member state of the Schengen Area.

The big question of course is why, and in order to answer this question I am going to describe what the data shows in several variables:

1. Regionally
2. Racial
3. Inequality

Regions

When it comes to regions, murder rates vary wildly city to city. Statista has the data to fully see where people are most likely to be shot. They found that the cities in the United States with the highest murder rates today are in:

• St. Louis 66.07
• Baltimore 55.77
• Detroit 39.8
• New Orleans 39.5
• Cleveland 27.77
• Memphis 27.73
• Newark 27.14
• Chicago 24.13
• Cincinnati 23.4
• Philadelphia 20.06
• Milwaukee 19.83
• Pittsburgh 17.98
• Indianapolis 17.91
• Stockton 17.77
• Tulsa 17.29
• Washington, DC 16.72
• Atlanta 16.41
• Nashville 16.3

St. Louis has the largest rate by far and than the rate drops significantly after that. Shootings around St. Louis tend to be concentrated around downtown, and in Black neighborhoods. Shooting map, Race map. Almost all of the murders were committed using a firearm.

 When it comes to states, we see (unsurprisingly) a similar pattern:

1. Louisiana
2. Missouri
3. Nevada
4. Maryland
5. Arkansas
6. Alaska
7. Alabama
8. Mississippi
9. Illinois
10. South Carolina
11. Tennessee
12. New Mexico
13. Georgia

Race

Murder disproportionately impacts African Americans more than anyone else.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/10/african-american-homicide-rate-nearly-quadruple-national-average-11680

Inequality

Here is a map of states with a higher homicide rate than Lithuania:

Here is a map of US Inequality from Wikipedia:

Not a perfect fit, but still pretty darn close.

The best theory so far which I have tested myself and have not broken is that income inequality is the biggest driver of homicide. This journal article shows how the inequality hypothesis is an unbreakable hypothesis (I tried and failed to disprove the inequality hypothesis myself when I was in college) in determining where there will be more homicides using a linear regression. Meaning, the relationship between them is so strong that it is a linear one at that, which is actually highly unusual.

More articles examining the link, none are very long and all are worth reading:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
• http://evonomics.com/inequality-predicts-homicide-rates-better-variable/ 
• https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Reading through these articles, along with my own research, I am completely convinced that in order to reduce our homicide rate we need to focus on reducing our inequality.

So, what does this look like in practice?

1. Well, the first thing we can do is tax reform. Reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes on the wealthiest in America will make an immediate and lasting effect on American income inequality. This should be fairly obvious. I do not oppose other methods to reduce inequality, but I personally believe this should be the first step. This is part of why I was so quick to join Carbon Washington while studying political economy in college.
2. What is the point of increasing disability payments if 10% of that money goes right back to the state? What is the point of increasing TANF when property taxes are hitting low income families the hardest as a percentage of income and 13.4% of their income goes to what is essentially a Ponzi scheme which most low income earners will lose money on? We should obviously do both tax reform and improve our safety net.
3. We should invest in Early Childhood Education. The impacts of Preschool are shown to be lifelong. It allows parents to go back to work, increasing their economic well-being, and substantially helps children with their social skills.
4. Improving Social security Old Age Insurance would make a significant impact on the ability of people to save and help money in poor families stay in their pockets. I have already written about how Social Security takes money from people who die young (read, are poor and more likely to be a racial minority) and transfers it to people who die old (read, are rich and more likely to be White). Replacing SS OASI with a Basic Income would instead transfer money to those people who need it most, reducing inequality, instead of probably increasing it. That money would stay in their families, not be transferred to richer old white people. The biggest policy move we can do to reduce inequality actually comes from a Republican proposal (if you have read my blog you know I generally have a very low opinion on United Russia, oh, Republicans), and that is to give people the option to privatize their Old Age Insurance contributions. I expect this would end the program within a decade because everyone would opt to privatize their contributions in a situation similar to what Singapore uses. The big difference is when people pass away this money is then inheritable by their heirs because it exists, as opposed to being transferred to rich old white people, as is the policy today. We could also give people the option to put their money in Real Estate as payments on their house mortgage, which is an option in Singapore, which has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. We could also just end the Payroll tax because it is the most regressive tax in America, though I do like the idea of forcing people to invest in their future in a way which actually provides value to their heirs, which OASI does not. This would literally save lives by reducing inequality.
5. Ensure all Americans have access to health care, in order to end medical debt which is eating us alive.
6. We can significantly increase funding for education at all levels. Free college will put young people on a path to save for retirement which will significantly reduce inequality for the long term. Improving schools in poorer neighborhoods by ending the dependence on local property taxes will have long term effects on economic inequality in the United States.
7. We should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit as soon as possible because it works at reducing inequality.
8. America seriously needs to join the bandwagon with the rest of the world and implement paid parental leave. This will allow people to keep their jobs and reduce the number of people who have to leave the workforce to take care of their children.
9. Ending racial segregation is the 6th idea from the Berkeley article, which will of course be the hardest to implement, but allowing people to use their payroll taxes to pay off their house will help this.
10. The OECD points out that tax incentives for education and health care disproportionately benefit the wealthy. We need to switch to a model which subsidizes these activities.
11. Improving unemployment benefits for people who lose work which is temporary would help reduce inequality.
12. Reducing the gender wage gap, which deserves an article on its own because unlike how social security takes from the poor and gives to the rich, this one is super complicated.
13. Cutting unnecessary government expenditures, particularly when it comes to the military, and then using that money for effective social welfare programs will help inequality by making it so money goes to people who actually need it.
14. Have no income tax on incomes below $100,000 per year for an individual.

As you can see, there are no shortage of policies the US government can do right now to reduce inequality, save lives, and save money. We should do as many of these as politically possible as soon as we can.

This is ultimately how we will reduce our homicide rate to be in line with other developed economies.

We need to do this now.

Lives are literally on the line.

Black Lives Matter.

References for inequality mitigation:

• https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/six-policies-reduce-economic-inequality
• http://www.oecd.org/eco/labour/49421421.pdf

Bad, worse, worst, hope

Today is a day which will go down in infamy as the day which the Conservative Party of Winston Churchill finally died. Today is the day which the cheerleader for mercantilism, isolationism, and fascism ascended to the highest office of the land of Great Britain. Threatening trade routes, the free movement of people, and putting the very freedom of the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at risk of evaporating to nothing, if he succeeds in his truly evil goal.

3 score and 14 years ago, the Armies of the United States of America, United Kingdom, and more stormed the beaches of Normandy, fighting against one of two evil menaces which haunted the 20th century, to finally end the power of Nazism which divided Europe and killed tens of millions of people. The people of France were liberated, and the armies of the Allies stormed through Occupied France, marching on Germany to liberate the Germans from their fascist dictator. Through another year of fighting the Allies stormed through Western Germany in the West and the East, and the Third Reich fell, never to rise again.

The first step to prevent a future of Fascism was the founding of the Western Union on 4 March 1947 when the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and the United Kingdom. This was the first step to modern international cooperation in Western Europe between free countries. This treaty lasted until 1954.

In response to this crisis, Germany lay in ruins, entire cities burned down to rubble as a result of the necessary response to the evils of Fascism's total war economy. For four years Germany was divided among the French, British and Americans until West Germany was founded on 23 May 1949. NATO was founded three months later on 24 August 1949, as a response to the Soviet threat while Stalin was still dictator. The United Kingdom was a founding member.

In 1952, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded, as the first major international organization of free European countries in the 20th century. Two years later on 23 October 1954 the Western Union was abolished when it was turned into the Western European Union. The United Kingdom remained a member until the treaty was annulled in 2011 as part of the consolidation of the European Union following the Lisbon Treaty.

The United Kingdom joined the European Coal and Steel community in 1973 under Prime Minister Edward Heath. The United Kingdom chose to opt out of two major treaties, namely the Schengen Area (free travel among most European Union members) and the Eurozone, but besides those two treaties the United Kingdom is a full member of the European Union in every way, with full representation in Parliament.

All of these treaties have grown over the years because when you get into the details of politics, things can become quite complicated, but it allows for dialogue between countries early when disagreements happen, and the freedom of movement and rights the European Union provides to all of its citizens is something very few other places in the world have. It is the second largest area of free movement in the world by number of people (second to the Indian sub-continent between India, Nepal, and Bhutan), and has more member states than any other international free movement area in the world.

The purpose of the European Union to increase trade and improve the lives of Europeans has clearly succeeded in my observation. We are living in the longest stretch of time in history without a war in Western European history, deep trade links across the continent have significantly improved the economy, and the charter of rights and freedoms has succeeded in improving the human rights record across Europe. All of its authority comes from the Members of Parliament who are elected by Europeans, from the heads of government who sit on the Council of Europe, and various cabinet members from all of the member states who cooperate on the Council of the European Union. The powers of the remaining institutions, and appointment thereof, stems from these three deliberative bodies of the European Union. The point is, the European Union is a democratic institution, and all of the decisions it has made have been made jointly by the member states. More so, treaties like the Lisbon Treaty were approved with a majority of parliaments, with the exception of Ireland who did it by referendum. Ultimately, all the powers of the European Union come from voters, either through Parliaments or directly in European Parliamentary elections. It is a democracy.

This is the problem with the ideas that the Conservative Party has about the European Union. The Conservatives say that these are decision put upon Britain by the famous "Eurocrat", but in reality every decision is made jointly by all member states, Britain included. From leave.eu's website:

By voting to leave the EU, we are taking back control of our sovereignty, we will be able to put in place our own policies and laws on immigration and our economy, including industry and energy. Agriculture and fishing will also benefit from falling under national administration for the first time in over forty years. We will now be able to take back control of our country.

In time we will be able to improve upon our position as the 5th largest economy in the world by taking back control of our finances and trade deals. We are now in a position to dictate our own trade agreements with the rest of the world.

This is the main problem with the arguments made by Eurosceptic parties. They think that the United Kingdom will have enough power to negotiate favorable trade deals by themselves, and that they will have better luck. On this they are fundamentally wrong. Negotiating as part of a big block is always better than negotiating as an individual. This is why trade unions exist, this is why people work together to be able to get better bargains. Becoming a member of a club like Costco is a good idea because Costco is a major buyer which then passes some of its discount on to its buyer. It is far more effective to join a price club like that then to be a single individual with little to no market power. The United Kingdom is a major global economy in its own right, with the 9th largest economy in the world right now, but they have only one eighth the economic weight of China, which will make treaties with China less favorable than they otherwise would be as part of a larger bloc, such as the European Union. On top of this, leaving the common market will mean less efficient supply chains from trading with the rest of the European Union. This will inevitably lead to a lower supply of goods for British consumers and a lower supply of tariff free factor inputs for British companies to purchase, and it will inevitably cause stagflation very soon from that reduction in supply.

This isolationism which many have been convinced of is only going to hurt the British economy, social life, and this inevitable reduction in quality of living is going to give power to extremist factions on the left and right who are going to offer conflict theory based statements in response to problems which are only going to make the situation worse. The Brexit vote was fueled by anti-immigrant hysteria which Theresa May wooed. Such hysteria has died down now, with remain having a small lead in the polls for over a year at this point in time. The polls remain close, as they have always been, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that the message of the Leave campaign is factually wrong in major ways as I just described.

To protect the future of the European Union, Boris Johnson will hopefully fall flat on his face, and the European Union will stand their ground that Britain should stay in the European Union. There is plenty of historic evidence already that staying in the European Union is the right decision for Britain, and we don't need to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors by moving towards an isolationist era again where demagogues like Boris Johnson are in power and instead move toward progress on issues like Global Warming.

Brexit is a policy which is opposed by most business leaders, environmentalists, trade unions, economists, and more. Any decision where business leaders, trade union leaders, and economists agree it should not be done is probably a very bad idea indeed.

When it comes to the leave campaign, a few supporters stand out, and the theme is nationalism. Marine La Pen, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Andrew Scheer, Vladimir Putin, and the writers of the National Review all support Brexit. The common thread among these is very clear, and it is nationalism.

In Boris Johnson's speech, he was lacking in much policy detail except for saying how he was going to get back at Europe, and get back at Labour. He offered no ideas, no hope, and it took 5 minutes for him to get onto any loose example of a policy. He is the least inspiring speaker I have ever seen, and gave one of the worst inauguration speeches I can imagine. We still have just under 3 years until the next election in Britain, which gives Boris Johnson plenty of time to do immense damage to the United Kingdom.

We are watching a lot of lies being spread by racists in order to isolate people from one another, which was created in response to the Holocaust. People say never again about the Holocaust, and the European Union, particularly the Schengen Treaty, are the biggest actions done in history to prevent future genocides and wars. The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is doing everything in his power to undo these institutions which have saved countless lives, and there are very few mechanisms in place to stop him, except if what few moderate Conservatives there are left decide to oppose him and at least give him a very difficult time while he is trying to destroy the best institutional defense against fascism ever created. This doesn't mean that the European Union is infallible, and it obviously doesn't mean that far right leaders cannot come to power. This has happened with Viktor Orban in Hungary most notably, and there are 73 seats in the European Parliament currently held by Identity and Democracy, a party of nationalists. Democracy can only exist by giving a way for anti-democratic parties a path to victory. This is the paradox of freedom.

Ultimately what we need to do is increase social trust, and improve political culture to be more caring, empathetic, and problem-solving focused versus a politics based on fear. We need to build an understanding that we get strength through cooperation and trade, not animosity and walls. This needs to happen everywhere across the world right now. Canada is coming up on a major election in October, and it is highly unlikely that there will be a majority for one party. Hopefully the Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens can work together over the next few months on being the parties of hope and working towards a future. With the United States we need to have a Presidential Primary which is a constructive as possible, with so many highly qualified progressive candidates running, we must work towards building a culture which is based on dialogue and empathy.

This is how we will build a world which works for all. We need to build economic systems which further empower people, improve access to education, and grow a global community of humanity where we can face the major problems which face us as a species together, trading with one another across the world, and helping each other out when natural disasters come our way. Opening borders further, increasing people to people connections across the world is absolutely critical to the long term goal of a world where there will be no war. It starts in our daily lives by being kinder, more honest, and starting from a place of love instead of fear. When we do this, it spreads across the world like an ocean, and we are more likely to have empathy for our neighbors, as has been spoken by prophets for as long as there has been philosophy. Billions of people can then translate this internal energy into action, organize our communities, build systems which raise up the powerless, and improve livelihoods without significantly harming the environment. This power will then trickle up to the highest levels of government ensuring that local regulations, national laws, and international trade treaties can then work to build a better world.

This is not the end, this is only a step to remind those of us who fight for freedom that we must remain constantly vigilant. This is a wake up call for people to realize that we are better when we work together, and this is what will come in the election in 2023 when Britain will vote in a better government which will work towards cooperation and freedom. This is how the Hegelian dialectic works, where we have a problem, followed by a reaction, followed by a solution. Currently we are facing the reaction to the Arab Spring which caused millions of people to look to Europe for Asylum, to which Nationalists responded by arguing for closing borders and their hearts. The next step is the solution which is going to be working on ending the roots of disruption in Europe, and empowering people in Europe with even better economic opportunities in order to narrow the inequality gap which nationalists use to gain power. Things always look bad in the reactionary period of the cycle, but we have seen these types of times before, and we will see them again in the future. But as Theodore Parker once said, the arc of history is long, and it bends towards justice. The question is what the shape of the arc of history is, and it is not a straight line, but the overall curve of the line does indeed bend towards justice as Rev. Parker said hundreds of years ago. This is only the second act of the story.

Stay strong, and keep fighting for freedom.

Issues in terms of importance

There are a lot of issues floating around in the political landscape right now, and they all deserve some level of importance. When it comes to the most important issues facing America today, here is how I think of them in terms of importance.

Social justice has many aspects demanding attention as always. You have racial justice as an ongoing issue in the United States, with police brutality, unequal education opportunities, and the persistent cross cleavage underlying the whole issue ruining lives constantly. These deserve attention, and require policies that address the root issues of the inequality which breeds racism, and bring down our homicide rate which disproportionately affects African American men more than any other demographic. This requires government policy to end the inequity and save lives.

Other social issues regard rape culture, LGBT rights, immigrant rights under the Geneva protocols, and much more.

Economics is a persistent issue. Tax fairness is a problem apparent to most, issues with Social Security, although not a big issue among voters with average information, is highly concerning to most economists, regardless of political affiliation.

Health Care is a persistent issue, and we must implement universal health care as soon as possible to save money and most importantly lives.

The environment is an issue which has clear working solutions to global warming. A well designed carbon tax would do more to fight global warming than any other policy, in terms of intensity, speed, and fairness. You wouldn't ignore physics when designing a rocket, and you shouldn't ignore economics when dealing with the consumption, production, and trade of oil. To not use economic theory is folly and will bring forward ineffective policies.

Infrastructure has massive impacts on economic growth, economic mobility, and of course the environment. Lacking economic mobility hurts low income Americans significantly, making it more difficult to climb out of poverty. Designing a durable, cost-effective, and functional infrastructure network is critical to all of these issues. We need to make it so as few people as possible need a car in order to live good lives by having good high quality mass transit and by investing in AMTRAK.

All of this is well and good, but at the end of the day these require having good government in order to ensure these policies are implemented efficiently and equitably. In "The Quality of Government" by Bo Rothenstein he comes to the conclusion that a factor which led Singapore to be developed was not democracy but more based on having a really effective leader. There is a big debate of course about Singapore, but it cannot be denied that there is a clear connection between the quality of government and social well-being. Quality of government is inversely correlated to corruption, and this is tied to inequality and social trust. The theory is that having a society where people trust each other helps reduce inequality, and this leads to lower corruption in society. These three variables are very correlated, and seem to be more important than simply having a more democratic government.

The vast majority of Americans want to have modern infrastructure, good environmental protections, a strong and equitable economy, and a society where people can live comfortably without race hurting people on a daily basis. According to the research by Bo Rothenstein among other political economists, we can start by building social trust in our society as a key feature of our societies to bring people together. I am getting involved with a group of friends building Imaginal Cafes with the goal of spreading them around the world. It is quite similar to the Alternative Library in Bellingham, Washington which I have been involved in now for about 5 years. What these spaces do is create non-sectarian, intentionally drug and alcohol free spaces for people to come together and enjoy themselves. When people are able to come together in a place free of influencing drugs beautiful things can be built which build trust and community.

This is fundamental to building a country which works for all people, and the foundational block when we look at political research. This will start at grassroots by activists who build those bridges and build communities of love and trust which are open to more people coming in all the time. We need places in every town in the world where people come together in a way which is social. Concerts are good because people get out, but when was the last time you actually talked to a stranger at a concert? As soon as alcohol gets involved, the probability of building the connections which we crave goes to 0. Political party gatherings are a good place to start even if you don't have an Imaginal Cafe in your community yet.

So, as a political economist, the first question is what types of policies can we implement to grow social trust? The first idea which comes to my head is mandating worker's rights. Guaranteeing every worker gets vacation and paid sick leave so people have the ability to be more refreshed and mentally able to go out into their communities and build those connections. This will make it easier to organize for all other issues when people are feeling like they are part of a community with the energy such a community can provide which breeds friendship and a better world. We must keep working on all of these issues at once, and I am grateful for all of the activists who work on all important issues. I am hopeful we can make a better system where it is easier to achieve all of these issues.

As we are building our social trust in our country, we need to also ensure that we have equitable elections. Our current election system in most of the United States inevitably breeds a party system dominated by only two major parties, like all single mark election systems. We need to have an election system which allows people to vote their conscience regardless of the "electability" of other candidates, and the only way to do this is ranked voting. Ending the two party system will reduce corruption, encourage social trust since having more smaller parties will be forced to work together to solve problems, and also force parties to stick to their platform, or their voters will leave them in the next election cycle for their coalition partner. This needs to be done in tangent with building Imaginal Cafes to grow social trust all at the same time, and building Imaginal Cafes will make it easier for people to get involved in making our election system fair.

I am personally focusing my political energy right now on three major issues. One of them is The Imaginal Cafe so we can have a better world for everyone, one is of course Carbon Washington, the most amazing group of environmental activists I have ever met in my life, and the third is FairVote so we can have governments with politicians who really represent the communities they are meant to serve. The three go together so well, and by building this more collaborative world, where we make decisions based on science, reason, and fact as opposed to hearsay, coincidence, and falsehoods we will be able to make a world which works for all.

Bloomberg on retirement

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-06-13/world-s-retirees-risk-running-out-of-money-a-decade-before-death
I have written a big on this issue before, and if you search my social security label on my blog you will see why I am highly critical of Americas retirement system.

When designing a retirement system which works for ALL, there are a few key ideas I believe will help make something which works for everyone.

1. A dollar deposited is counted as a dollar.
2. Retirement savings must have a balance in a fully convertible currency (no Bitcoin) which belongs to the beneficiary.
3. The average retirement account for the average worker must gain interest past inflation and withdrawals.
4. All money left over when someone dies is property of the deceased and is inheritable pursuant to the laws of the state the deceased resided in.

Social security breaks all of these rules, as I have described before, and fails to increase social mobility for families, which is one major advantage of having a 401k. Both sets of my grandparents have IRA accounts, as do many people of their generation, and when my Washington GET program ran out (it was designed very similarly to a Ponzi scheme or OASI) one set were able to use their retirement to reduce the student loans I would have needed to take out.  My great grandparents had traditional pensions, and their main retirement plans disappeared upon their death. We shouldn't go back.

The more I think about the retirement crisis, the more I am convinced we should give people the opportunity to privatize their Social Security accounts. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance program has a serious racist aspect to it. White men live to be in our mid-70s on average, while the average African American man does not live to his 70th birthday. A regressive tax for Social Security further reinforces this racist inequity. If someone had the option to privatize their social security, the average person would be better off than they would be under the current system, and if they die in their 60s will be able to leave a legacy to their next of kin, usually children, as opposed to the current system where the government keeps the difference. Unlike other welfare programs in the United States, OASI transfers money from the working poor to people who live longer, who are usually richer and white. Source

Giving people the choice to deposit 100% of their social security taxes into their IRA, which can also be used for a down payment on a house (since owning a home is the major way middle class families in the United States accumulate wealth) will solve the retirement crisis for my generation. It wont help current seniors, they screwed themselves through their generations politics where Republicans created the student loan crisis, did not do any of their ideas for social security, and Democrats insisted any criticism on Social Security is an attack on the middle class. One important concept in economics is liability, and the problems which arise when people do not see consequences for their actions. We must avoid the moral hazard of not reforming Old Age Insurance, which will perpetuate down future generations with higher taxes and fewer benefits if we maintain the status quo.

The problems with social security are already here, and the longer we let dogma stand in the way of good policy, the more we will allow people to be seriously harmed. Perhaps Social Security is a sacred cow because it is one of the most effective transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in America, so neither party will touch it, while we can't even get every Democrat in Congress to back a public option, which has the possibility to save us $2000 per capita per year or more if it helps push our average cost of health care down to the cost other countries pay, which is the equivalent of over $6 trillion per year households will be saving in sum.

We need a better system for retirees in America today. 13.4% is far more than sufficient for the vast majority of Americans to invest for their retirement. When economic studies like this pop up on my feed regularly, we MUST fix our retirement crisis as soon as possible and put people over dogma.

6 point economic plan to save the middle class

There are some serious problems in the current American economic system which hold the middle class back. All of these policy decisions reduce income mobility and hold our economy back. Here are what I see from my life as the biggest problems in the American system which hold Americans back:

1. Our health care system has some major problems. We spend way too much for drugs, and there are situations where employers need to hold back hiring because it will make it hard to stay in business. Getting access to health care in the USA is far more challenging than anywhere else in the world, and denying people for health insurance claims is a major cause of debt which holds people back. Many disabled people today end up in a welfare trap where if they get a job they might not have sufficient health coverage for their particular needs. This holds people in poverty.
2. The student loan crisis is reducing the number of Americans who are home owners, convincing people in my generation to put off having children, and hurting our economy. It must end. Many people need to put off going to college to qualify for FAFSA in order to get educated. I would rather have people making $50,000 per year as opposed to $30,000 per year from delaying college.
3. Social Security Old Age Insurance has some major flaws. If someone dies soon after retirement the 13.4% of their paycheck which they paid over their lives does not go to their heirs, stealing money from the working class, holding people in poverty. For the amount that people put in over their lives, the amount Social Security pays is really fairly measly compare to other options. Someone who retires this year with a $50,000 income would receive $1300 per month ($15,600 per year) versus the $46,000 which they would have earned from the over $800,000 which they would have in their account if their retirement money would have been in if they had put their money into a municipal bond fund which averaged 6% per year. The current system doesn't even pay as much as you would have made with 30 year treasuries averaging 4% interest at median household income, adjusted for inflation. Would you rather make $15,000 or $46,000 per year?
4. Our tax code is not progressive enough. Capital gains get a special rate which significantly reduces the treasury and give a massive tax break to the wealthiest in the country.

With fewer job opportunities because of how our health care system works, people my age drowning in debt, our retirement fund is not providing very good benefits for the amount we pay in, and high taxes on the working class, it is no wonder why so many Americans feel stuck.

Here is my plan to increase income mobility in the United States:

1. Universal health care. Either have a public option, like the German system, or a single payer system like Canada.
2. Tuition Free College. Every American going to a public university should owe nothing in tuition. No one should ever have to delay their education due to financial restraints.
3. Universal Basic Income. Every American gets $5000 per year (plus inflation) every year of their lives. For minors, half of this money goes to their legal guardian, half goes into a trust made of municipal bonds which they have access to when they turn 18. This is cheaper for the government than our current Old Age Insurance Program, and inheritable if someone dies early, keeping the money in the family after estate taxes.
4. Reform Old Age Insurance. The old age insurance program is in reality a Ponzi Scheme, and allowing Americans to choose to put the 13.4% of their paycheck which goes to the program into a private fund will be a major boon to the middle class.
5. Progressive taxes. Capital gains should not get special treatment in terms of their tax rates, and should be taxed as regular income when they are withdrawn. We should have negative taxes for people who make less than $100,000 per year (for a single individual) and have a top tax rate of 50% which only people who make millions per year would pay. Instead of using marginal tax rates, the tax rate should be calculated using a rational equation, which is simpler and allows for a more fair curve. If we need more money we can lower the threshold where people start paying taxes, or adjust tax rates in other ways, but the government should only run deficits during years of recession. Yes, I am a hard core Keynesian. Also, 5 years after writing this, I still can't find any problems with it.
6. Retirement account flexibility. People can get locked into bad retirement plans and have to change jobs to improve the most important financial account of their lives. People need the freedom to modify how they invest as they see fit, change their retirement management companies, when they see it as being important, or find a better provider. Competition in the financial services industry is a good thing, and this will foster that.

Each plank in this plan works together well, for example:

You are 18 years old and about to go to college. Under the current system if your parents or grandparents didn't invest in your going to college you will almost certainly take out student loans which you will pay off when you should be investing in your retirement fund. You will have limited job opportunities due to how our health care system works which limits employment opportunities. You might be lucky to have a car which makes it easier to find a job, since on campus jobs are very competitive, but you will probably spend your twenties looking for work and paying off student loans off of very little money. When you finally do get a job, 13.4% of your income will go to a retirement plan which will not even provide enough for you to survive on in your retirement. You then have to save money for any children you might have for when they are in college with the 80% or so of your income you keep after taxes. Good luck.

Under my plan however, everything is different. Starting when you were born you will receive $5000 (adjusted for inflation) per year from the government for being an American citizen. Half of it is stored in municipal bonds, gaining you tax free interest, and the other half goes to help your parents/legal guardians raise you, lowering the likelihood they will be in a debt spiral. When you graduate from high school at 18, you decide to go to college. You don't have to worry about paying tuition knowing you will likely pay back to society if and when you are yourself successful. Your Universal Basic Income Trust is there to help you get transportation if you need it for a job, and provides you a nest egg which you can dip into if needed, along with $5000 a year (plus inflation) which will help you pay rent in college if you need to. You graduate debt free, and get a job. You keep most of your income unless if you are particularly lucky, and you are able to invest for your future. Your basic income provides you something to fall back on, reducing the need to go into debt your entire life, and when you retire at 65, the fund you invested your UBI into will generate by itself enough money for you to live for the rest of your life. Supplementing your UBI into your retirement fund when you are young, which you can do since you are not spending money on student loan interest, will definitely provide sufficient income for any American to retire comfortably on the interest of their retirement fund, leaving the principal for their children upon their death, improving their family's financial status for generations to come.

Which do you prefer?

We must end ESTA

Unaware to most Americans, the United States implemented the Electronic System for Travel Authorization as a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, which restricts non-overland travel to the United States for all countries except Canada, Bermuda, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. It is claimed to improve our security, but in reality this is completely false. Over 99% of applications are approved in no time, and people are required to apply at least 72 hours in advance. The pass fortunately lasts for the validity of the passport, but it still does make it less convenient for people from highly developed and safe countries to come to the United States. This has been used since January 12, 2009, 8 days before George W. Bush left office.

Other countries have since adopted similar policies at the pressure of the United States, particularly Canada on 10 November 2016, one year after Harper left office (notice a pattern yet?), Australia adopted it on 27 October 2008, one year after John Howard left office (definitely a coincidence), and ETIAs will be implemented in Europe in 2021, 2 years after EPP suffered a crushing defeat at the polls, and most countries will have national elections.

Also, you can still come to the United States visa free from all of these countries, as long as you travel to Mexico first. If ESTA is really designed to screen all passengers to protect us from camera wielding, towel carrying German tourists, it's doing a terrible job at it.

Maybe it is just a coincidence that right wing governments want to implement restrictions of the freedom of movement, but far enough in the future that they will likely not be in office to see the coincidences of their actions until it becomes the new normal. They claim it is for the safety of the nation, with an utter lack of terrorist attacks from the targeted countries, but they absolutely refuse to implement it before their sorry booties are kicked out of office.

This is because their claims that these new visa programs improve safety are absolutely rubbish. It is as true as all of the lies which the Tories in the UK have been saying about Brexit. The problem for the Tories is Brexit is such an extreme level of economic destruction which they are currently causing that the true intentions of their isolationist policies are obvious to all but the most blind. The flaw in their plan is they managed to stay in government for its impact and will feel the full brunt of their evil.

If these pre-clearance programs really improved safety, they would be implemented quickly. If they really improved safety, they would have a lower approval rate than 100% (with a rounding error). If they really improved safety, they would have no loopholes.

This program targeting German tourists was implemented in reaction to the 9/11 attacks. The one country which has NOT had any consequences from the 9/11 attacks is still Saudi Arabia. 15/19 hijackers on 9/11/2011 were from Saudi Arabia, and the United States has done literally nothing to restrict access from that religious fundamentalist state which is the only country to successfully attack American soil since before my grandmother was born. If they really wanted to protect America from countries which have actually attacked the United States we wouldn't target Germany, we would target citizens of Saudi Arabia.

The US, Canada, Australia, and EU need to wake up, improve travel between our countries, implement real visa-free tourism for the countries in these programs, and pursue real policies which make us safe.

The ESTA is not a policy which keeps us safe. It actually puts us in more danger by making travel more difficult. People to people connections foster peace through trade, which is the only time tested proven way towards a world which has less war. People got used to being able to travel freely between free countries, and fascists could not increase real visas between our countries during the brief era of free travel reciprocity we enjoyed in the 2000s. They are chipping away at this freedom piece by piece, moving us closer to war. The first step of this was the PATRIOT ACT, which was the first chipping away at our freedom of movement. The next step is to increase the cost of it until it is as much as a regular tourist visa, and their goal of alienating us from each other will be far harder to reverse. We reached a level of peace in the 1990s relative to any other time in history so deep, with so many economic and travel connections between countries, that it would take at least 50 years to get us back to the military dominated society with major European nations going to war with each other, feeding the military industrial complexes with that racket with our tax payer dollars against our will, chipping away at our freedoms through voter restrictions, travel barriers, and economic restrictions which funnel money from the majority of people to the modern aristocracy. They will not get the level of war they want until they succeed by ending free travel.

We must end these expensive, disruptive, divisive, and alienating policies and move in the opposite direction towards policies which bring us together as a world and increase connections between the people of all nations. This is how we have peace, this is how we have prosperity. We need economic policies which move individuals towards economic prosperity for all, and increase the expansion of science, communication, and bridges between all peoples of the world. The Bush administration did everything they could to move us from this dream, and it is now up to us to undo their damage to our country.

The easiest first step towards the liberal dream is to kill ESTA and replace it with true visa-free travel.