Unemployment Crisis, Worldwide (Solution): Work, has its Nature Changed Permanently?

Does our current employment emergency represent a world wide, permanent systemic shift?

In the 4 years since this article and the 5 installments have been posted, I have had a number of visitors from countries like Germany, Russia, Latvia, Poland, France, Ukraine, Great Britain, Sweden and China.  I would very much appreciate receiving comments from people who are trying to interest governments or businesses in trying the idea, and their experiences.

During the bitter 2112 US election cycle much was made of the failure of President Obama or his administration to move unemployment below 6% over the preceding  4 years.  In the beginning of his Presidency, no one really knew how severe the overall economic situation had become.  For the first 4 months after inauguration jobs continued to disappear at a rate approximating 800,000 per month.  Large sums of money were approved to promoted economic and hiring activity, but much of that money is still sitting in storage with banks and corporations.  Why on earth is that true??

I propose that there has been a marked and probably permanent change in the employment dynamic for the developed world.  This explains why both we and Europe, and even some areas in Asia, are in or facing an economic crisis.  At least in the US, the rapid escalation of top wages relative to workers and the middle class means less money in the hands of the people who are likely to use most of their income to buy the kinds of goods and services that support production and service businesses.  For banks to sit on the funds made available during the emergency has only worsened the situation.  The worldwide information and automation revolution is also making its impact.  Here is my theory and explanation, plus a unique, far reaching, but simple plan to quickly lower unemployment. 

Over the past few centuries patterns of labor and employment have undergone profound changes. In the 1700s the Western world was predominantly agricultural. People mostly worked small tracts of land, at times for long hard hours, but also with seasonal slow periods. Women as producers of thread, cloth, clothing, bread and other foods often worked more continually than their menfolk.  For example, in England many people raised sheep and their womenfolk spun yarn for the fabric industry, until machinery and cotton production changed that dynamic.

As the industrial revolution advanced, more and more people, including children, were pulled into the grinding labor and long hours of textile mills, coal mines, steel mills and other large manufacturing enterprises. Slavery in our South and elsewhere flourished with the invention of the cotton gin and the manufacture of sugar.  Conditions in the North and in Europe for "free" workers were often almost as bad, with fewer beatings but even less food and housing security.  Luddites even revolted, at times violently, against the machine.

Eventually people organized and rebelled successfully.  Also, some legislators were struck by the damage of long hours to both children and adults and instituted labor reforms. Whether by the slave revolt in Haiti or the labor strikes and union formation in our own country and Europe, working hours were gradually reduced. From 6 days and 10 to 16 hours per day, to our current standard of 35 to 40 hour weeks has been a long fought struggle.

Now many are in a severe unemployment crisis. There are those who say we just have to consume more and make more. But, we all seem to have so much STUFF, a lot of it from China, that many are coming to realize they really don't want or need more STUFF.  In fact, there are several monster yard sales like the 700 mile yard sale for 4 days in early August each year so people can get rid of their STUFF.  With so much efficient, low-cost production throughout the poorer countries, where will "first world" reemployment come from? There has also been a shift in the kinds of workers needed, with new kinds of training and education needed as outdated kinds of work are lost.  Even for manufacturing jobs returning to the US, greater efficiency will reduce relative need for workers.  In the US our schools have fallen behind in teaching for the new economy.

I believe that we have reached a new period in the history of production and labor. In Europe the average amount of time for paid vacations is mostly much higher than in the US--France-38 days, Sweden-32 days, Italy 31 days, Denmark-30 days, Germany-27, Britain-26. In the USA the average is 13 days. Even Japan provides 15 days, and Canada 19. Has the efficiency of world production increased so much in recent years that the 35-40 hour, 49-50 week work year can no longer provide full employment in developed countries?  That would certainly appear to be the case in some European countries with unemployment above 20%. 

While there is tremendous long-term employment potential for renewing aging infrastructure, producing renewable energy sources, developing the new oil shale fields like the Bakkan, caring for the elderly, etc., this will not be a quick fix. Nor will people necessarily be willing or able to run up the municipal or national debt needed to finance some of this employment. There is also resistance to running the risks of rapid oil development without adequate safeguards.  Thus it seems we need solutions that can be implemented quickly, and at the same time reduce unemployment and increase a sense of job security.  Insecure people do not spend much money on non-essentials, nor take time out to learn new, more marketable skills.

Some states, municipalities and businesses have tried to avoid firings and layoffs by requiring all employees to NOT work a few days each month. That is helpful but not a very efficient way to save some jobs and money. However, it would be far better for employees to have longer prescheduled periods when they could make productive use of their enforced time off. Then they could plan things like career education, home renovation, large gardens, or short-term seasonal specialty work.

School systems have already learned to deal with the summer unemployment of most of their teachers. The individual teachers usually know if they will return to their job after the summer break. In some systems teachers can choose to be paid 1/10th of their salary for each of the 10 months they work, or 1/12th of their salary monthly over the entire 12 month year, even when they are off for the summer months.

If governments or businesses need to cut back on employment because of lack of revenue or reduced sales, they should consider the model developed by schools and teachers. They should determine if they have slower periods when their employees could take one or more months off without disrupting employer needs.  Then workers could be paid full salary while actually working, or an equivalent fractional salary for all 12 months of the year.  [Managers dealing with the US Sequester might consider this as a voluntary option rather than across the board unpaid leave for everyone.]

Plans could be made well in advance for those who would want pay for all 12 months while working fewer months. The reduced monthly payments would begin immediately while the money not paid would be put in escrow for payment during the months not worked. While it might be nice if we could have longer guaranteed vacations as in Europe, under current low employment conditions in the US, many would probably just be happy to have a secure if slightly smaller paycheck.  Other developed countries might find this type of system useful as well.

This kind of program could be implemented anywhere and at any time by a government or business that wants to save money while at the same time providing security and stability for their employees, and retain their trained workforce at times when short-term lay-offs may be unavoidable. However, if we are truly entering into a historic new phase in employment needs, then a more structured and widespread system of employment practices may be needed.

I have been observing the growth and development of employment problems since the 1970's, and researched and written a more broadly based, voluntary system for dealing with our overall changing employment needs. Temporary booms like the dot com and housing bubbles can provide an increase in employment for a few years, but they don't last. After considering a number of contemporary problems, I believe that significant positive changes could result from implementing a more balanced pattern for employment, education, and personal projects in what I call A New National Lifestyle.

------------------

I am in the process of polishing this comprehensive plan for our current conditions. This concept is entirely new, but I hope you will be interested and willing to read all the installments.  The five installments have been posted on Oct. 26, 27, Nov. 2, 4, and 5, 2012 There is a box in the upper left side of the post where you can enter your email address so you will be informed of all new post or significant updates.  I also hope you will provide useful comments and opinions which I can  use as I modify, update and expand this plan. If you choose to read it, I hope you will keep an open mind and remember that it is voluntary and democratic in implementation, and no more extreme than daylight savings time.  It appears that people in a number of European or other countries have read this.  I would appreciate hearing your opinions and whether this type of plan is being proposed or implemented anywhere.

Saving Social Security, Wage Cap, Marriage Penalty, Failure to Index (2016 figures)

Since President Obama was elected, politicking has been intense over the Fiscal Cliff, tax increases and reducing spending.  The newly elected Republicans have immediately shown their intent to attack SS by moving to reduce money available to SSI for disabled people.  Moreover, now that Trump's corporate giveaway Tax Bill has passed (Dec. 2017) we can soon expect attacks on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  Below is the ammunition to fight to save and improve SS collections and fair payments.

[1/1/17]  Here is the latest information on the 2017 changes in Social Security payments, to you and by you.  The increase in payments was minuscule, while Medicare deductions increased a bit.  My SS this year will be the same as last year as a result.  The amount above which you must pay taxes has been raised, but the amount of pay above which you must have SS deducted has also increased.

[12/1/16]  With the election of Donald Trump, and with anti SS Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives we will need to follow their current activities.  See near bottom of this post for new details.

It is feared that our President might be persuaded to negotiate harmful changes to SS to appease Republicans in the House of Representatives.  One move to prevent bad changes has been the introduction of the Strengthening SS Act of 2013 (S. 567) by Senator Tom Harkin.  This bill would add income to correct for the increased costs for health care experienced by the elderly by implementing the CPI-E for the elderly.  Read this link for an explanation of details on S. 567.  [http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/LettersTestimony/Documents/ArticleID/1144/Letter-Supporting-Strengthen-Social-Security-Act-of-2013  We hope it will be reintroduced in 2015.

Here is the bill itself which is harder to understand [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s567/text] .  The proposed "chained CPI" is exactly the wrong corrective.  Read below to have real facts when you argue with others and your elected representatives, that reductions are both unnecessary and very unfair.  It appears that chained CPI will be pushed more after the new Tax Bill's approval.

One of the important political topics this year has been "saving Social Security".  Unfortunately, not much useful or specific information has been given out by either major party.  Both parties have assured older voters that they would only make changes for people retiring far in the future.  They seem to think that we retired people don't think or care about our children and grandchildren.  They are WRONG!!  As a retired person with 4 grandchildren, and as a political candidate,point of  I have made apoint of seeking specific fixes that would both "save" and enhance Social Security, as well as covering related tax based issues.

First of all, I strongly oppose raising the retirement age to 70.  Even if your work is a lower energy white collar position, by the time most people reach that age, the normal stresses of daily living, not to mention the stresses of aging make going to work every day more difficult than it was even at age 65.  In addition, some fair formula needs to be developed to enable people engaged in hazardous, unhealthy and debilitating jobs to retire at an earlier age after working in that field a certain number of years.  The types of jobs deserving that kind of consideration include underground mining, physically demanding construction, etc.

Of course we need to find ways to pay for Social Security since more people are retiring and relatively fewer people are coming into the job market to pay for it, not to mention their own future payments.  These facts have been a factor in the Immigration debate. A commonly mentioned target is the "wage cap" (also called tax max).  This figure is a ratio of taxable wages to all covered wages.  This was decided upon in 1983 after observing the effects of certain changes that had been made in 1977.  At that time it was decided that 90% was a fair target figure.  It has been argued that it should not be a higher percentage because there is a figure above which one does not get paid back with Social Security benefits.  In 1983 this was a bipartisan political compromise.

Then, jobs tended to be much more stable.  However, we have now seen many highly paid middle and upper management people loose their nice comfortable jobs and salaries.  Many of these jobs have had salaries seriously cut, been off-shored, or eliminated altogether.  Many of these people have experienced long periods of unemployment, accepted jobs with much lower pay than they ever dreamed would be their lot.  I'll bet many of them now wish more money had been put away for their retirement than happened with a 90% cap.  Even more painful is the fact that over time 90% has dropped as low as 82%.

Apparently the cap has been raised each year according to inflation (around 1 to 3%).  No one anticipated that top earners would have wages jumping 10% to 20% each year as has actually been the case.  Therefore, the caps shown below are much lower than they should be to maintain the 90% wage cap level.  We will be running out of full SS coverage sooner because of failure to maintain the 90% wage cap level.

The cap stands at about $118,500 for 2016, and an increase to $127,200 in 2017.  Money earned above that figure will not have funds deducted for Social Security.  However, due to the increasingly far higher income of top tier earners, the cap has hovered around 85% starting in the mid 1990s, and has drifted even lower to around 82% recently.  Charts I found at www.businessinsider.com show that since 1983 about 6% of employees had earnings above the tax max.  On the other hand, a chart also shows that since 1983, around 23% of individuals have earned more than the tax max for a year or more.  I wonder how many who lost their high paying jobs after the 2008 crash wish they had been paying a full 90% wage cap before 2008.  [There are many interesting articles and charts at this site for those interested in taxes and fairness.]

Therefore, although I was not elected as our "Shadow" Representative to Congress, I will continue to lobby that the cap should be immediately raised back to the 90% level, and then 1% per year added up to the 95% level and perhaps even higher.  This would add quite a number of years to the solvency of Social Security.  I have also given thought to the idea that there be a "floor", below which no SS is deducted from wages, but perhaps this would not work as these small annual deductions are part of what make even low income people eligible for SS benefits.  Although the "Shadow" Rep job is aimed at at lobbying Congress for Statehood, while one is talking with Congressional staff it is also useful to raise this issue which affects every person in DC who receives or hopes to get SS.  For that matter it affects everyone in the country with those expectations.

[Since I was not elected, although I received a respectable 31,000 votes, I now urge you to lobby your representatives, or the Representatives of your friends and outside DC relatives to make this change.  Both Republicans and Democrats agreed in 1983 that the 90% level was reasonable.  Therefore, restoring that level should not be considered a taxing increase (sorry, Mr. Norquist), but the keeping of a promise Republicans were actively involved in.  Don't let President Obama (or now President Trump) be persuaded to mess with SS in ways that hurt SS recipients present or future.]

As I pointed out during my run for At Large City Council this spring (2012), our politicians have frequently forgotten to index their taxes and figures for inflation causing us as taxpayers to have some of the highest income taxes in the country.  [From February to May 2012, I posted 6 articles related to harmful effects of DC tax neglect.  Check them out, they are still active issues in our local elections and you can influence your candidates.  In 2013 I testified twice at Tax Revision Commission hearings regarding this neglect.  I am excited to report that the TRC has recommended our Council "couple" DC's Deductions and Exemptions to the Federal rate.  They estimate this should leave around $85 million in our taxpayers' pockets.       [Urge the Council to approve this, judge your Mayoral and Council election choices including this issue.]
     [In 2014, when the Council Chair decided to take 6 years to phase in this benefit, I decided to run against him.] [Now Trump's Tax Act has eliminated Exemptions and DC's Deduction was made the same as Federal rates for 2018, not 2019 tax years, a 1 year saving for all DCtaxpayers.]

Much like the well publicized Alternative Minimum Tax failure to index for inflation, I have found 2 important failure to index problems in our Social Security benefits.  Before 1983 there was NO tax on Social Security income.  Then, during the Reagan administration, it was decided that retired people with outside income should have to pay taxes on the SS benefits they had earned while working.  What is it with these Republicans and their willingness to tax lower and middle income people including retirees??  I just learned that Clinton increased the level of SS taxation.  If someone had noticed the drop from 90% tax max down to the mid 80's% perhaps he would not have felt the need to do so.

A complex Social Security Benefits Worksheet is provided in the IRS 1040 Instructions booklet to help you see if you owe taxes on the SS benefits you earned.  In 1983 the Worksheet included a $25,000 reduction for a single person, and a $32,000 subtraction for married people.  THOSE FIGURES HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED FOR 35 YEARS!!  Adjusted for inflation, the 2016 figures should be:  single - $60,875, married - $77,664.  Talk about a "MARRIAGE PENALTY!!"  Many widowed, divorced, single elderly cannot afford to remarry because of this injustice.  Religious fundamentalists should be reminded that it is CRUEL to force people to "live in sin" or loneliness, so the rich can get/stay richer.

A second unfair result of failure to index for inflation is the "one time" SS Lump Sum Death Benefit.  When established in 1954 at $255, it was supposed to pay for a basic funeral.  Now, if inflation adjusted to $2,291 for 2016 , it would just about cover a no frills cremation.  When my mother died in 1996, I was surprised that my father received such a small "death benefit."  When my husband died in 2005 and I received the $255, I just laughed (ironically), used it to pay my electric bill, and pulled together the money to pay for his cremation and memorial service. In 1954 the death benefit was supposed to be 3 times the deceased's monthly payment or a maximum of $255, a figure close to the maximum 3 months SS payment.  As it is, this $255 is like a bad joke when we are trying to pick up the pieces of the deceased's life--funeral or cremation, medical bills, rental before cleaning out the deceased's possessions, taxes for owned property before it can be sold and instead possibly foreclosed.  One more strike against the poorest among us.

Both of these SS inequities hurt lower income workers.  They should be corrected immediately and an annual inflation adjustment applied from now on.  Moving the wage cap back to 90%, plus the 1% increase a year, suggested above, should more than cover this cost.

I will vigorously lobby to have these changes made.  Politicians, and especially Republicans should be held to account for making it easier to "live in sin" than to get married because of this "SS Marriage Penalty".   Sympathetic church groups and GLBT organizations should seize on this issue to persuade or castigate those who would choose to ignore this move to basic fairness, or claim that same sex marriage is a danger to marriage.  Thanks to the Republican supported decision to TAX Social Security benefits and NOT INDEX the Worksheet deduction, far more straight couples are being hurt by this than will ever be impacted by same sex unions.

If elected as your "Shadow" Representative, I will lobby vigorously to correct these SS inequities.  Even if not elected, I will still do some lobbying on this indexing problem.  Someday I would like to be able to afford to marry the fine man I have found since I lost my husband.  We are not alone in this wish.
- - - - - - - - - -
[12/1/16]  Concern for saving SS and Medicare is heating up, especially as Ryan proposes a voucher to buy private health insurance.  Here is a particularly pertinent comment (many others are good too) from the linked article regarding Medicare:
     "Once on Medicare, we also continue to pay.  Part B premiums come out of our social security check, $160 or so month for medicare supplement insurance, and average $45 month for prescription coverage, so most retired folks on Medicare are also paying $300 or more per month once on it — $3600 year.  And I want younger people to know this because we aren’t getting it for free now, even though we paid into the Medicare insurance program for 47 plus years, if one worked full time and retired at 65 to 66 years old.  The idea that it is an “entitlement” like welfare is a lie.  We all need to be more vocal about this.   And I for one, as a retired insurance company compliance officer, know that the 4 or 5 top health insurance companies do NOT want to be in the senior individual direct health insurance market.  They never have and Ryan can’t make them.  You could take his dog bone voucher and buy nothing with it!"
     Sen. Bernie Sanders goes all out against Trump and his choice, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), for Secretary of Health and Human Services (in charge of Medicare and "Obamacare.")

DC Council & Mayor Expulsion for Felony on Nov. Ballot

Monday, Oct 15, 2012, I participated in the well attended Congress Heights candidate forum held at the Petey Green Center on Martin Luther King Ave.  After all the candidates had given their 3 minute statements, Philip Pannell, the moderator, brought up the issue of the Council's proposed Charter Amendments V, VI, and VII to deal with illegal behavior by our elected officials.

I had covered this issue in an earlier blog post: "Harry Thomas Inspired Council Act Received by BOEE", and a detailed Comment at that post providing the Council approved revised language.  I had attended the BOEE's regular meeting to deal with a specific DC Statehood Green Party matter, but found the BOEE's treatment of this material forwarded to them by the Council most interesting.

After they reviewed the material submitted, I had the impression that the Board was ready to approve it.  However, I asked whether "ineligible" meant for the duration of the term, or forever.  Also, whether this would prevent a dismissed Councilmember from running for Mayor, or a dismissed Mayor from running for Council.  These thoughts were discussed for a minute among the Board members.  Then the Chairwoman, Deborah Nichols, said, "this matter is much too serious to rush through", and it was tabled.

Then she asked if I would like to submit suggested language to her regarding and including the issues I had raised with my questions.  I had planned to do that a few days later, but unfortunately they untabled the matter 2 days afterwards, May 10, and sent their recommendation back to the Council. My email letter was not sent until May 14, 2012.  BOEE further indicated that they liked having the public attend and wished more would do so.  Only about 8 of us were there altogether.

The final language approved by the Council and to appear on the November ballot establishes that:

   Charter Amendment V "would permit the Council to adopt a resolution to expel a Councilmember upon a 5/6 vote...upon demonstrating that Councilmember's gross failure to meet the highest standards of conduct and upon establishing procedures for the expulsion...."

   Charter Amendment VI "would make anyone who is convicted of a felony while holding the Office of Councilmember ineligible to remain in office and ineligible to ever hold the office again."

   Charter Amendment VII "would make anyone who is convicted of a felony while holding the office of Mayor ineligible to remain in office and ineligible to ever hold the office again."

Mr. Pannell explained the seriousness of these 3 ballot measures and then invited people to speak for or against each of the 3 Amendments.  I spoke to explain what had originally happened at the BOEE.  I pointed out that I had raised the issue of whether the expulsion was only for the remainder of the term, or forever, or some in between period like 10 years.  The issue of whether an expelled Councilmember or Mayor could run for the opposite office has not been addressed at all.  There will probably be an election in a few months for the Chairman's replacement, and perhaps a Charter Amendment VIII could be approved by the council and put on the ballot at that time to cover this issue.

Someone spoke in favor of each of the 3 Amendments, but there were strong statement against as well.  There is deep distrust of the use the establishment or other powerful interests might make of these measures to get rid of politicians they do not like.  There is lack of specificity regarding what "gross failures" or "felony convictions" might merit expulsion.  In recent decades we have seen gross theft of  $1/3 million from young people's activities, personal dishonesty or failures regarding loan documents or income taxes, or so-called victimless crimes involving drug use.  I imagine there are those who fear that entrapment could be used to depose the unpopular.  Also, what if there is a felony conviction and then some years later this kind of "crime" is decriminalized?  Sodomy and marijuana use come to mind.

[12/15/14 -- Now that the elections are over and we have memorialized the life of former Mayor and Council member, Marion Barry, voters are once again facing political action to replace the late Ward 8 Council member, and the soon to be vacant Ward 4 seat of Mayor elect, Muriel Bowser.  In a recent City Paper, Loose Lips column, NBC4's Tom Sherwood was mentioned as suggesting the man mentioned in the preceding paragraph might try moving to Ward 8 to replace the former Mayor.  Since Charter Amendment VI was approved in November 2012, I immediately wondered if this were even possible.  He resigned from the Council January 5, 2012, and was sentenced May 3, 2012.  Thus he was not a Council member when CA VI was voted in.  Loose Lips thinks that his required residency in a court ordered halfway house not in Ward 8 until March makes any run impossible.  One can wonder whether the fact that his attorney was Attorney General elect, Karl Racine, would help or hurt his ambitions.  And of course the big question.  While Ward 8 voters were forgiving of Marion Barry's personal failings and legal problems, would they be equally forgiving of stealing, for personal profit, from children much like their own?]

When I was working for a member of the DC Board of Education in the late 1970s my boss would joke that the most popular local newspaper was holding a "secret expose" over the head of the incumbent Mayor to make him toe the line.  I never knew if this was more than a joke, but given the situation with our current Mayor, it is a thought that deserves pondering.

[1/14/14, Mayor Gray has filed and is running for Mayor in  the Nov. 2014 General Election.  This despite the fact that legal actions regarding the $650,000 "shadow" campaign issue has not been resolved, and more arrests are rumored.  Today's telephone poll of a little more than 1,000 people by the Washington Post indicated that more than 50% felt the Mayor was untrustworthy.  Mayor Gray received 24% in favor, Muriel Bowser and No one/none 12%, Jack Evans/Tommy Wells/No opinion 11%, Vincent Orange 9%, Andy Shallal 5%, Reta Lewis and Christian Carter 1%.  This poll was half land line and half cell phone.  Land line  would tend to express the views of older settled voters.  Younger voters might favor someone like Andy Shallal.  Polling a population the size used can have around a 4% error rate.]

[the 1/14/14 poll has statistics on 32 questions with interactive information on some including race, age, income, education, etc.  It also includes some of this information on the more important candidates.]

All in all, BOEE Chairwoman Nichols' statement that this is "much too serious to rush through" may still be valid.  People with opinions on this topic will need to contact their Councilmember's office.  Muriel Bowser, I believe, was spearheading the Ethics improvements in government at the Council.  My April 3rd blog post lists a number of Council Member's email addresses (of course there have been some changes since then).

If you have thoughts on this issue, I hope you will provide a comment so I will have some ideas, opinions and statements to work with in the coming months as I campaign and lobby.

ReplyDelete

DC Sacrifice, Blood & Lives, Merits DC Statehood

In recent weeks I have attended/taken part in/responded to a number of DC candidate forums and questionnaires.  One important question has been, "What would you do to promote DC Statehood if elected?"  First of all I will continue to work for Statehood whether I am elected or not.  However, I do have several thoughts/ideas on the whole issue.  One reason I have joined the DC Statehood Green Party is that we do not accept corporate financing and thus have no part in the recent electoral scandals and questions.  Therefore we can promote Statehood with clean hands and a pure heart throughout the country.

Thus, I encourage our voters to vote the DC Statehood Green Party ticket.  We will have 6 candidates printed on the November ballot.  Some may be tempted to vote for President Obama.  Last election he had 93% of the vote in DC.  Has this gained us anything in DC?  For those who rightfully fear a Romney administration, voting for Dr. Jill Stein in DC is not going to change the fact that President Obama will still get a majority of DC votes and our electoral votes.  However, if his count drops by 10 or 15% perhaps he will realize that we are disappointed that while living here full time he has done so little for our city or our Statehood quest.  Continuing to pay 100% federal taxes, while only electing 2 out of the 5 representatives we ought to have simply is not fair.

Second, it has come to my attention that Republicans have expressed an interest in having Puerto Rico, with potentially 5 Representatives and 2 Senators, become a state.  Although a majority of those elected might be Republicans, if we in DC were to enter as a state at the same time, the major political parties would probably be represented roughly in equal numbers.  Pairs of states entering the Union with different political views has been arranged several times in the past.  Since we lost the Utah redistricting pairing idea, this seems to be our next best strategy as DC is unlikely to win a supermajority of approvals by the 50 states in the near future.

On Sept. 24th I raised this idea at the DC for Democracy candidate forum when my competition for the "Shadow" Representative to Congress and I were questioned, which you can see at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7zQwr_YXPI&list=UUMiMKm6VpDuRi9lgGH30Big&index=5&feature=plcp
The chance to use this strategy for the moment depends on the results of the November 6th vote in Puerto Rico when they will decide if they want Statehood, Independence, or status quo.  I am considering making a fact finding trip there, where I have family already living, to make contacts for potential future joint action.   Unlike Rick Santorum, who says PR would have to make Spanish language secondary, rather than co-equal with English as it is now, I suspect that we in DC would honor their cultural diversity and language.

A third idea is to raise national awareness of the very real sacrifices in blood and lives that we in DC have made in our military.  This is also true for Puerto Ricans who have served bravely in the US military as well.  I propose that each Veteran's Day and Memorial Day we have a press conference/demonstration in front of the column with Washington DC carved on it at the World War II Memorial.  There is a large blank granite rectangular block holding a tall column.  We should prepare a poster the size of this rectangle.  Written on it should be:  DC soldiers DIED (              ), DC soldiers WOUNDED (              ), DC soldiers SERVED
(            ).  Supporters of Puerto Rican statehood could join us in doing the same.  Photographed against our memorial column this would be a powerful statement to send the nation.

The failure of candidate Romney to even mention our service people in his major Republican Convention address is especially indicative of his lack of concern for the common man.  You would think that after getting 6 draft waivers while selling Mormonism in France, he would recognize the need to make an extra effort with the group that has sacrificed so much more than the rest of us.  The fact that so many of the 47% that he says don't matter to him are service people or families, and often living in "red" states, shows just how ignorant and unconcerned he is with the economic condition of people in our country.  I have encountered several wonderful summaries of opinion regarding the Romney campaign that deserve quoting.  They are comments at a Huffington Post article titled,  Mitt Romney Ohio Ground Game: A Frantic Race to Catch Obama, by San Stein.

"redhead55, (1089 Fans)  Redhead informs me he quoted this from the blog:  Crooks and Liars.

"Introducing President Obama in Virginia Beach, retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), condemned Mitt Romney for failing to mention veterans or the military in his GOP convention speech.  The omission was all the more damning, Webb suggested, because Romney is of an age where he might have served in Vietnam but did not.

“If nothing else, at least mention some word of thanks and respect when a presidential candidate who is their generational peer makes a speech,” said Webb, a former Navy secretary and decorated Marine who served in Vietnam. Romney was exempted from the draft, first as a student and then as a missionary.  “This was a time when every American male was eligible to be drafted. People made choices,” Webb said. “Those among us who stepped forward to face the harsh unknowns did so with the belief that their service would be honored.”

Webb also tied in Romney’s much criticized remark that 47 percent of Americans believe they are “victims” who feel entitled to federal handouts, saying some of those benefits go to veterans.  “Those young Marines that I led have grown older now. All gave some. Some gave all. That’s not a culture of dependency,” he said. ”They paid. Some with their lives, some with their wounds, disabilities. Some with emotional scars. Some with lost opportunities. Not only did they pay, they are owed. They are owed.”  excerpt from C&L"

"RandomJ, (170 Fans)  This was reacting to a Romney volunteer, a Marine "trying to save his country."

A former Marine is for his presidential nominee NOT mentioning ONE word of the Afghanistan war, the LONGEST war in American HISTORY, and NOT saluting our brave American troops in his RNC coronation speech...?! A candidate running for president better mention THIS, and Sir Mittens DIDN'T!

"When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important." –Mitt Romney, when asked about failing to mention the troops in his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention, Fox News interview (Sept. 7, 2012)  "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2007 about killing Osama bin Laden

A former Marine is for his presidential nominee NOT having a timetable to withdraw troops out of our endless war where American soldiers are getting shot and killed every week...?!  A former Marine is for his presidential nominee attempting to politicize the killings of American diplomats in Libya by falsely accusing President Obama of apologizing for America and getting the facts of the situation backwards...?!

A former Marine is for Republican lawmakers BLOCKING a just recent $1 billion dollar veterans jobs program putting 720,000 veterans who are unemployed across the nation back to work tending to the country's federal lands and bolstering local police and fire departments...?!  Way to go Marine..."
_  _  _  _  

I believe we have a powerful argument when we point out to the rest of the country, just how much our vote deprived citizens have sacrificed because they live in Washington, DC or Puerto Rico.  Taxation without Representation is just plain unAmerican.  Personal note:  My older son who participated 3 years in DC schools ROTC program still has 2 years to go before his 20 year retirement from Special Forces.  He has already served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his wife and two children will soon again be deprived of their husband/father for another 8 months.  He and his family are just one of many and all deserve the right to vote for Senators and Representatives.

[If any local historian has the figures for our WWII DC military service, please place the information or source in the Comments box.  Thanks, G. Lee Aikin]

Chicago School/Conservative Views of Economics

Guest post by Don Wharton

Milton Friedman

Economic theories are to a great extent ethical claims. They say that shared outcomes will be better if we engage in certain policies of governance, taxation and finance. The outcomes for people living under those laws will be vastly different depending upon which theories and which laws we adopt. Economics is asserted to be a science and in theory we should be able to compare these theoretical claims with the factual data.

Milton Friedman was one of the central figures creating the conservative Chicago School of economics. A prime feature of this variety of economics is a belief in largely unrestricted free markets. This can be very effective in increasing or decreasing commodities, manufactured goods and services in response to changes in relative demand by our society. If there is a shortage of corn the price will rise. There will then be more land, labor, fertilizer and machinery used to produce corn, satisfying the demand.

Friedman wanted an extremely minimal government and disliked things such as permits and licenses as a matter of almost quasi-religious belief. He was opposed to licensing medical doctors. Of course, this would have opened up medical services market to a vast variety of medical fraud and quackery. To be fair, there are laws against fraud and in principle Friedman would argue that these laws would limit misbehavior.  On the other hand, we have seen how well this worked for the banking industry this past decade.

Alan Greenspan was a supporter of Friedman's views. He saw no problem with the mushrooming of sub prime, low documentation loans for real estate or the slicing and dicing of bundled mortgages to finance the recent housing bubble. This fraud was endorsed by rating agencies that seemed willing to give AAA ratings to repackaged mortgage instruments sold to credulous buyers. The ratings agencies were in effect bribed by the financial institutions that were requesting the ratings. Once again laws against fraud in theory apply. A few people have been prosecuted under such laws, but only a very tiny percentage of the army of people who built the housing bubble that destroyed many trillions in the American people's assets. The fear of prosecution was almost totally absent during the building of the housing bubble. The very minimal current levels of prosecution suggests there would be no fear of  bad legal consequences when future markets become similarly disconnected from reality.

A major contributor to the recent credit bubble was the abolition of Glass-Steagall Act which was installed at the height of the Great Depression in 1933, but partially repealed in 1999.  These provision limited the abilities of banks to directly participate in risky investments for their own profit. This reflected the assumption made by Friedman and others that free markets worked and the best government was one that governed least. The result was a disaster with overall median family net worth falling 38.8 percent from 2007 to 2010 (June 2012 report from Federal Reserve).

Friedman was a monetarist asserting that inflation was always a result of an increase in money supply. He argued that the Fed should be abolished and the money supply should be increased at a fixed rate based on the increase in the national economy. He also argued that government should never use government spending to increase demand in recessionary times. The April 2012 GDP rate was slightly over 8% more than the peak rate prior to the crash recorded in April 2008. The M2 money supply increased 28.7% over the same time. Over $1 trillion in federal budget deficits has occurred every year of the Obama administration.

 Based on these facts there has been an avalanche of predictions by conservative economists and politicians that inflation and the fear of inflation will vastly increase the cost of funding our national debt, destroy the value of the dollar, and put us on a pathway to becoming the next Greece. The yield on the ten year US note has collapsed from a recent peak of 4% on 4/5/2010 to 1.51% on 8/2/2012. The dollar index, DXY, at the beginning of August 2012 is higher than at the beginning of August of 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008.  Their predictions have obviously been flat wrong.

The Neo-Keynesian concensus is that during the recessionary period following a liquidity crisis the government should provide demand which makes use of the people and productive capacity that would otherwise not be put to good use. There was a very large inventment in skills, organization and tools in the construction industry during the housing boom. After years of disuse a large fraction of these investments now have no value. People are unemplyed for years and are living with a sense of desperation with no options to support their families. At the same time we have thousands of schools which are desperately in need of renovation. We have bridges that are in danger of collapse and we have a transportation system which is in near dysfuntional gridlock in many areas of our country.

Much of our society is now focused on paying down debt resulting in an increased demand for safely stored money and lower than normal desire to invest or consume. The result is extremely low interest rates at every future maturity date of Federal debt. Thus, the cost to our national government for most borrowing is less than current or expected rates of inflation. This means that any public sector investment that yields any positive efficiency in our economy creates a net positive benefit for society.

 The Friedman economic view is that these investments will always create distortions and inefficiencies that damage the economy. The obvious net value of children learning better in renovated schools or people getting where they wish to go more rapidly and safely with an updated trasnportation system is strong evidence against conservative economic claims. Public health, fire safety and police protection are other obvious areas where positive value can be generated at low or negative net cost.

A sweaping claim made by conservative economists is that fiscal deficits are financial warfare against our children. The reality is that forcing so many children to live in poverty or the stress of near poverty is an unneeded war against them in the here and now. The impact of forced austerity on employment has been illustrated by the nearly 25% unemployment rates in Greece and Spain. Statistical analysis of changes in budgets and subsequent changes in GDP in Euopean countries suggests that less than half of any reductions in government spending will be seen as smaller deficits. If we slash Federal budgets by a trillion dollars the deficit will be reduced by less than half that amount because the GDP will be reduced and the tax revenue will be much less. That means that in order to balance the US budget there would need to be multiple waves of massive budget slashing.

 The result would certainly be many millions added to the unemployment roles and a huge increase in deprivation for American children. Given the impact on both state budgets and parent's ability to save for education our next generation would be significantly deprived of the education that would be needed for our nation to deal with the problems of the future. Conservatives claim that a balanced budget would create economic growth, but there is no nation that has confirmed the current conservative theory that government austerity creates growth.

As noted before Friedman asserted that the money supply should be increased by law only in response to an increase in the economy. Implicit in his assumption is that the velocity of money will remain constant. This assumption is false. As we know, during and after a liquidity crisis the desire for safe stores of money is sharply increased and the desire to consume and invest is reduced. The net effect is that a given money supply will be associated with a far lower level of economic activity. If the Fed is abolished as Friedman suggested there is no mechanism to increase the money supply in respond to this abnormal situation. If Friedman's rule were in effect our current M2 money supply would have to be reduced 17.5% to be in line with the increase in GDP since 2008. Of course, with a much lower money supply we would not have our current GDP.

Major concepts of conservative economics have not been confirmed by recent evidence. They are about as valid as the phlogiston theory of combustion and the flat Earth theory of geography. It is profoundly sad that one of our major political parties is addicted to demonstrably false economic theories. If these theories are more fully implemented they will yield massive suffering to the citizens of our nation.

Are You Better Off Today vs 4 Years Ago: "Better" Defined

Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?  This seems to be a major theme of both the Republicans and the Democrats.  The Republicans insist that we are worse off than 4 years ago.  Of course, they are NOT asking if we were better off 4 years ago than we were 8 years ago.  The Democrats are saying that we are indeed better off in 2012, because millions more are now covered by health insurance, GM and the 3 million related jobs was saved, Osama bin Laden is gone, we have pulled out of Iraq and are moving out of Afganistan, among other things.

Also, although unemployment figures are not as low as many feel they should be, the rate of disemployment was very high as George Bush left office, but since that rate bottomed out in 2009, 4 1/2 million private sector jobs have been added.  Unfortunately, public sector jobs continue to fall as local and state governments struggle with reduced tax income to pay for government employees.  Nevertheless, some jurisdictions continue to pay outrageous amounts in overtime, when it would be better to use this money, (perhaps at time and one half rates) to hire other employees, reduce the total unemployment and enable additional workers to pay their property taxes (instead of loosing their homes) and buy commodities that produce sales taxes.  Frankly I was appalled to see a recent article showing that some Maryland employees were working 60 to 80 hours per week and almost doubling their take home pay, while others in Maryland are unemployed.

As I listen to both parties insist that our goal requires that each generation have a better life than the one before, I find myself thinking.  What is a better life really, and when do we have enough.  A few years ago I wondered the same thing as I watched the  McMansion craze.  I wondered how so many people could think that a huge house would make them any happier, other than for bragging rights.  I thought of Aesop's Fable about the magic fish.  A fisherman caught a fish that offered to grant his every request if only he could be freed.  The fisherman released the fish.  He and his wife lived in a shack.  His wife first wanted a nice cottage, then a big house, then a palace and ultimately the stars and the moon.  At this point the fish put them back in the shack.  Will our reckless use of resources eventually put most of us back in shacks?

I have just read "Lost on Planet China" by J. Maarten Troost (2008).  This amusing but distressing book should be on the reading list of anyone who cares about the future of Planet Earth.  He describes the almost unbreathable air in most of China that kills about 700,000 people a year (more than the population of Washington, DC), and that gives traffic policemen a life expectancy of 45 years.  He points out that the US has 5% of the world's population and emits 25% of the world's pollution.  In the US there is one vehicle for every 1.25 inhabitants.  In China there is one for every 40 Chinese.  He asks what will happen when the Chinese (1/5th the worlds population) start to live like us?  Do they have less right to air conditioning, central heating, a car, an office or factory job?  He concludes that "from an environmental perspective, this is a terrifying development."

And make no doubt about it.  The Chinese are developing as fast as they can, although the recent world economic setback has been slowing things down there too.  They are spreading throughout the undeveloped and developing world as fast as they can, to nail down the resources that will become very scarce as they and the Indians continue to develop their countries. One example specific to our country is the XL Pipeline.  The Republicans have been screaming that failure to support this project is a failure by the Obama administration, and causes higher gas prices.  Fortunately, he has had to listen to the conservationist wing of the party.  We are already exporting some of our own oil production, and this will only result in more oil to export, not lower gas prices.  By all means lets hurry up and deliver it to the Chinese.

Surely it is imperative that we look at a newer and greener way of determining what makes our world and country a better place.  The Republicans tend to look at obvious wealth and goods as the measure of doing well.  Democrats tend to give more value to health, security and employment.  Another value is more time to enjoy with family, to work on creative projects, travel in and study the world, etc.  I think that many of us who are not neurotically greedy reach a point when we have a big enough home, have earned enough money and now wish we could relax and enjoy our relative prosperity.  If we are not emotionally invested in "keeping up with the Joneses" then our enjoyment of non material resources and services can become a sign and goal of being better off.

This is much harder to quantify, but the tiny country of Bhutan has developed a formula.  In addition to Gross National Product (GNP), they also consider Gross National Happiness (GNH).  The 4 components of GNH include sustainable economic development, environmental preservation, cultural preservation and good governance. The have even abolished TV advertising, and smoking.  Bhutan has made environmental preservation a top priority in its development policy.  Our own national Green Party has done the same.  If only our major parties would do the same.  Of course, it helps that Bhutan has an enlightened absolute monarch, which we never will, nor should want.  I encourage you to Google search more information about this fascinating GNH policy in Bhutan.

Thus, as we listen to the parties insist that they will help the next generation be even better off than this one is, let us consider carefully, what we really need to make us happier.  Is it a big house or SUV, a much bigger salary, or greater health security, time to enjoy our life and families, and explore this wonderful earth?  Once you have examined your own priorities, then you can evaluate what each party is trying to sell us.  In my own case I have concluded that much of what I value most is provided by the Green Party platform and least by the Republican platform.

Rape, Republicans, & now Zika Virus: Their Rape Ideology & Todd Akin Ignorance

This morning (August 2012) I was listening to the Sunday political talk shows and found myself getting more and more angry.  Last week we were treated to the spectacle of Republican Todd Akin declaring that women victims of "legitimate rape" had some magical means of preventing a pregnancy from occurring.  Even though the immediate instinct of most raped women is to quickly rinse out the invading sperm, at least if they are fortunate enough to have the rapist run off quickly; a conservative site posted a figure of 5% as the percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy.  Of course, many victims are raped repeatedly, and held prisoner for longer periods of time, or beaten unconscious.  Thus they cannot exercise this most immediately effective means of preventing pregnancy.

The conservative take on this 5% figure was that this was a very low rate of pregnancy and thus tended to confirm Todd Akin's ignorant science ideas.  I was so ticked off reading this I decided to do a Google search.  There I found a figure of 36,000 rape pregnancies a year, of which one half were terminated.  Regarding the important issue of how many unprotected sex acts result in pregnancy, I could find no specific figure.  However, a statistical analysis of estimated unprotected sex acts per year per couple, the average number of days per month a woman was likely to be fertile, and similar factors resulted in a figure of 3% to 5% probability of a single unprotected sex act producing a pregnancy.

Thus, it appears there is absolutely NO statistical basis for imagining some unknown protective means a rape victim can use to stop implantation by an alien invading parasite.  Since it appears pregnancy rates actually might be lower in non-rape situations, Akin's remarks are without foundation.  Perhaps rapists favor younger women who do get pregnant at a higher rate per act than do older women.  Also if a consenting woman does NOT want to get pregnant, she can always say no, or use a condom.

It is bad enough a MAN running for Congress could be so ignorant of basic science, but we also must look at the issue of what constitutes "legitimate rape". He has tried to apologize for this statement by explaining he meant rape by "force and violence."  However, Paul Ryan, Todd Akin and other Republicans attempted to include a provision to limit abortion to forcible rape in a proposed Federal anti-abortion bill to rewrite the Hyde Amendment.  This also suggests they think a 10 year old being raped by her "loving" father or uncle would be likely to fight to the point of bruises and broken bones.  Or that a 28 year old man has the right to seduce a physically developed 13 year old girl.

 Now (August 2015) an interesting chart of  various  Republican politicians' statements on rape has been posted.  These choice statements range from sincere statements that "a rape child should be considered a 'gift' from God," to the cute statement, "that when rape is inevitable you should relax and enjoy it."  Regarding this current election cycle see the 2012 quote from current Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum  "The right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless...the gift of human life, and accept what God is giving you."  I'm sorry, but if God is giving such "gifts", to quote a friend, "If God would do that to unborn babies, I might believe in him, but I would NOT WORSHIP him."  See also Ron Paul's statement there.

[In March 2015 we are now seeing Republican ideology at work to sneak the Hyde Amendment into a bill to protect women from sex slavery and trafficking.  They are trying to use this abortion prevention law to interfere with spending of a special dedicated fund to help women. This fund is made from fines against traffickers, NOT FROM TAXPAYERS as many are being led to believe.  How can they be so incredibly callous as to withhold funds from girls and women who may be escaping from a terrible situation but carrying the spawn of a criminal and rapist.  Of course, to Republican men it appears that any male seed, however tainted, is more important than a rescued girl or woman.  They are also using the controversy to withhold approval of an eminently qualified female candidate for Attorney General.  In April 2015, Loretta Lynch was finally confirmed by the Senate.  Although in this article the delay was attributed to the immigration issue.

[March 2017] - Amazingly, Mexico City has begun a highly creative program to shame men into changing their behavior that is insulting to women.  In addition to the evocative "penis seat" described at the above link, a video experiment is being conducted.  This involved installing cameras that would take tight shots of male buttocks and displaying them for all to see.  A number of men are shown in the video expressing disgust and embarrassment.  Recently unveiled print ads show guys giving women lascivious looks with slogans like "this is how your mother gets looked at every day."

[April 2017] - A creative female Texas state legislator has introduced a bill to fine men for their "masturbatory emissions."  This bill, is her satirical response to the many anti women's rights and reproductive interference bills being introduced in the Texas legislature by men.  It should cause lively debate in the committee which normally discusses abortion related bills.

In the late 1990's a significant drop in murder rates and other crimes was noted.  It was suggested that legalization of abortion in 5 states in 1970, and the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide  in early 1973 was the main factor.  This detailed May 2001 article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics concludes it was an important factor.  In 2008, Fox News attempted to explain why this detailed analysis was wrong.  Their article concluded, "Even if abortion did lower crime by culling out 'unwanted' children (a conclusion derived from flawed statistics), this effect would be greatly outweighed by the rise in crime associated with the greater incidence of single-parent families that also follows from abortion liberalization.  In short, more abortions have brought more crime."
     The conclusion that abortion rights have brought more crime is ridiculous considering that crime rates have continued to drop significantly.  Nor does the Fox News (Republican's go-to news source) article provide any useful charts and statistical analysis.  This 2008 article is an early example of the Republican lie machine at work.  FactCheck in July 2016 has several charts showing what a lie the 2008 article was.  Some major cities, including DC, have had significant murder rate increases since 2014, but there are those who attribute that rise to publicity regarding stupid and malicious police killings and the rise of the"black lives matter" movement.  More timid policing has been suggested as a factor too.
     President-elect, Donald Trump has exaggerated this temporary increase as the FactCheck article points out.  Someone should tell him that if he succeeds in following through with all the abortion restrictions his far right backers propose, some day he may have to explain why his administration had much higher crime rates than did the Obama years.  On the other hand if his reaction turns out to be much more aggressive policing, we may see a far higher rate of deadly police shootings.
 
Here is a significant quote from an article outlining the way Republicans highjack laws that are sold as helping women, which are then used to hurt them even more.  Sickening!!

"...'The same Gospel that compels us to war against sex trafficking compels us to address sexual immorality in all its forms.'  That, of course is the main point.  Religious crusaders against sex trafficking say they're against trafficking--but really, they're against sex.

Trafficking is the "tip of the wedge," where evangelicals might make common cause with liberals and feminists.  But ultimately, the wedge includes pornography, sex work, homosexuality, sex for pleasure, abortion, contraception--anything that might be construed as "sexual immorality."  That broader agenda is evident in the way...laws have been written and enforced, and in the way the religious anti-trafficking movement has cast the struggle."]

[Nov. 19, 2016]  In the light of the Trump victory, we need to be aware that changes forced on  "Obamacare" and Planned Parenthood will have many consequences.  This link on sexually transmitted diseases shows the danger budget cuts because of the Recession, have had on disease rates.  With Republican attacks on existing sources of health care these rates will only get worse, and as the article points out the resulting health care costs are far greater.
     Also of great interest is the "rape" case against President Elect Donald Trump, which will be heard in court this December (too bad it wasn't held before Nov. 8).  There are many links to this story at Google, but I picked one from the British media, considering they might be more objective.  Apparently there are two witnesses to this attack on a 13 year old.

[Now in January of 2015, Republican Brian Kurcaba, of the West Virginia House of Delegates, has weighed in on this appalling subject.  “Obviously rape is awful,” Kurcaba said. “What is beautiful is the child that could come from this.”  This quote was connected with a fight to limit abortion to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy with NO exceptions for rape and incest.  There are many insightful and useful comments at this site:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/06/1362725/-GOP-lawmaker-opines-on-rape-What-is-beautiful-is-the-child-that-could-come-from-this#comments.  Hopefully WV voters  will make sure he never reaches the national stage.  The comments point out some states even allow jailed rapists visitation rights.  I wonder how Mr. Kurcaba would feel about raising the child if his wife were raped, plus forcing her to provide visitation rights to the rapist?]

Apparently the Federal bill would have denied Federally funded medical help for victims of drugged rape, statutory rape, and the like. Force and violence has to include the woman fighting hard and showing evidence of being beaten into submission.  It is not enough to make a rational decision if a knife is held to your throat, or a gun displayed with a statement that you will be shot if you resist, that perhaps the wisest course is not to resist.  The question can be raised, "where is the knife, where is the gun and did you know if it was loaded or not??"  This form of a glib approach by Republicans to the whole subject of rape was personified in 1990 by Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams who wisecracked comparing bad weather and rape:  "if it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."  Democrat Ann Richards had been behind by 11 points, but ended up winning by 2 points.

Even more disturbing is that Ryan seems to be against most forms of birth control.  You would think someone who wants to reduce abortion would want to encourage women to plan for wanted pregnancies.  People who recognize our planet is under severe pressure from population growth, including Green Party members, realize it is a highly ethical and moral stance not to produce excessive numbers of children, and especially unwanted, unloved babies.  Here is a particularly ugly story of a religious country forcing an 11 year old girl to bear the child of her rapist stepfather.

What is it about "pro-life" (let's call them anti-choice) people that so many seem to want to force others to reproduce as much as possible??  Yet many of these same people are very pro- military and pro-hunting which tends to be anti-life.  They are also very active in their efforts to destroy Planned Parenthood even though only 3% of Planned Parenthood activities are associated with terminating pregnancies.  They don't seem to care about the other 97% of health care so many women especially poor women need.  Also, although many are against government interference, in this case they want to use the government to promote their agenda.  I guess part of their agenda is the production of "cannon fodder."

[2/9/16] - How will Republicans respond to the Zika virus.  This mosquito borne virus already seems to have caused hundreds of infants in Brazil to be born with shrunken heads and brains (microcephaly).  Now infected people have been found in the US and it also appears to be spreadable by sexual activity.  Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America has started a petition to Republican president frontrunner candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.  She urges these candidates, who each come from states where the Zika virus has been detected, to support universal contraceptive coverage and women's access to to the tools to delay pregnancy if so wished (such as provided by Planned Parenthood, which Republicans are trying hard to destroy).  She points out that millions of American women don't know whether it would be healthy to become pregnant with the spread of the Zika virus--and they deserve to have the ability to delay a healthy pregnancy.  She says each of the GOP frontrunnes has attacked universal contraceptive coverage in the past.Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

 "U.N.: Zika-affected nations must increase contraception access," USA Today, February 5, 2016http://act.moveon.org/go/1253?t=4&akid=161863.23102069.RM6HSa

[11/30/15] - This just in, Republicans are not the only ones making outrageous rape statement.  The first lady of Zimbabwe has publicly implied that girls who wear mini-skirts in public deserve to get raped.  Her husband, meanwhile, is using the United Nations to promote his anti-gay agenda.  He says that even Satan is NOT gay.  On the other hand their legislature appears to be moving to require castration of rapists.

[1/10/17] - I have just seen an email urging support to prevent Mike Pence from passing a law that would enable parents to electroshock their minor children to cure them from homosexuality.  Researching this concern I found this article claiming Pence said Conversion Therapy enabled him to get married.  In light of the controversy regarding Pence, Conversion Therapy, and electroshock for minors, The New York Times published this 11/30/16 article regarding their findings.  Given the overall Republican attitude toward women and the helpless, it pays to remain alert, especially since the Trump election.

To top it all off,  the draft of this year's (2012) GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment banning access to abortion, making no exceptions for women who have been victims of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.  They are even using the Constitution to justify this "cruel and unusual" amendment.  There are at least a few sensible blue state Republicans who do not favor including this provision.  Let us hope there are even more sensible voter who will reject this moral insanity promoted by the GOP.  [Actually in January 2015, a revolt of GOP women stopped the new GOP majority from pushing such stupidity.]