Posts

The First US Health Care Law

 Under our current system, government decisions about health care for Americans has never been about Constitutional limits, government budgets or philosophical ideals.  It's been about the bottom line for business and business people. Consider an interesting column from Forbes magazine - not what you'd call a left-wing rag.  The article tells about how Congress and the President dealt with ensuring health care for privately-employed Americans in a law passed in 1798.  Yes, that's right, 212 years before Obamacare was signed into law.  This particular law didn't cover all Americans, only sailors on merchant ships.  However, it still provides a clear example of the US Constitution and government mandated health coverage. The issue began with the question of international trade.  The US government felt international trade was essential for the US economy.  Back in those days, "international trade" for the US meant private merchant sailing ships.  The US had foun

The Democratic Party During My Life

 I recently became a senior citizen.  The 2020 election season caused me to think about what the Democratic Party has done in my lifetime.  Below are those examples which stand out in my mind. First, during most of my pre-teen years, Democrat-run Southern states maintained racial segregation and restricted voting.  While they enforced racist laws, they didn't enforce their murder laws when it was committed by the KKK / racists against African-Americans.  (Some may ask: Didn't Congressional Democrats vote to end this?  When Congress voted on the  Civil Rights Act of 1964 : in the House, 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes; in the Senate, 82% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats.) In the late 1950's, as he prepared to run for president, Sen. John F. Kennedy promoted the myth of a "missile gap" (claiming the USSR had more nuclear missiles than the US.)  Wikipedia says this was false. In April 1961, the Kennedy administration participated in the

Book: Democracy at Work by Richard Wolf

I recently read Democracy at Work by Richard Wolff. This book intended to discuss an alternative to the inequities and crises of capitalism, while avoiding the problems of Communist systems such as the USSR.  In building his arguments, he tries to draw a distinction between "capitalism," "socialism" and post-capitalist society using a definition which characterizes social democratic governments and Communist systems as varying degrees of "state capitalism."  Understanding which social institutions could maintain a equitable post-capitalist society deserves a lot of thought and discussion in advance.  I had a number of questions, doubts and objections to points in this book.  However, reading this with critical thinking may help readers work through some of the important factors in making a better society. While I'm not satisfied with the label "state capitalism," the "Fall of Communism" in 1989-92 raised important questions.  Th

On "Unequal Democracy" by Larry Bartels

I recently read Larry Bartels' book Unequal Democracy. The book begins by presenting a case that the economic policies of Republican presidents are harmful to most Americans and the policies of Democratic presidents are beneficial to most Americans.  Then, he explores why this hasn't led to more Democratic electoral victories.  He considers when in the election cycle voters need to see benefits, why voters support tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich / repeal of the estate tax, why the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation despite wide public support, etc.  Because he argues Democratic policies are better for most people, partisan reactions to the book are likely. While I think GOP policies have been worse for working people than Democratic policies, my impression has been that Democratic policies haven't been as good as he suggests.  The Wikipedia item on Pres. Carter's policies describes him as a fiscal conservative, says his first economic proposal cen

How the Majority Makes Out in the Economy

How does the economy work for the majority of people?  If you want to get information from the major media, you have to be careful and not just look at the most prominently presented figures. Even using a comparatively good source such as the Washington Post, you need to go step by step through their 10/31/18 article " U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll "  The first sentence of the article says that wages rose 2.9% from September 2017 to September 2018.  The second sentence says that is the biggest increase (not adjusted for inflation) in 10 years. It then tells us that adjusted for inflation, wages rose 0.6%, and that is the biggest increase in 2 years. We're then told that unemployment is at a 49-year low, and this has put pressure on employers to increase wages.  [Apparently, under such pressure, employers consider a 0.6% rise in real wages after a decade of low wage growth to be "good."] They then quote an eonomist

What is a Mandate from the People?

Let me start by saying this article isn't specifically about Democrats and Republicans.  It uses them as examples to make a point, but the point is about elected officials of whatever party taking advantage of a biased system to ignore the will of the majority. Today people talk about the Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress.  This has allowed them to carry out various policies.  Their record of passing legislation in Congress has not been as extensive as one might have expected.  Some GOP efforts in Congress have failed because of opposition from extremist Republicans in Congress.  In one famous case, the Republicans lost by one vote when John McCain decided not to follow the herd.  On the other hand, there have been presidential actions, confirmation of nominees, actions by cabinet members, etc.  Congress has passed the tax bill, confirmed one Supreme Court nominee, and are attempting to push through another Supreme Court appointment. How does t