I read in today’s (March 9, 2023) Boston Globe how many Republicans are looking at slashing our foreign aid programs, making medicare receipients pay more and other cuts which only affect those on fixed incomes or of limited means. For my entire adult life I have paid into Medicare, and I continue to do so at age 74. This is NOT an entitlement; this is an investment I made for help exactly at this time in my life when I am no longer a part of the workforce.
We are the richest nation in the world, and it is not even close. Supporting Ukraine in its battle and supporting disadvantaged countries is something we owe the world.
President Biden has suggested increasing the tax rate for anyone who makes over $100,000 a year and yet Republicans are complaining! They can afford it! Republicans need to remember that the darling of their party, Ronald Reagan put a 20% minimum tax on such people and his threshold for such a tax was much lower.
Taxes are not the boogeyman Republicans make them out to be. Nowhere in the industrial world are its citizens taxed less. I suggest that raising the individual tax deduction to $25,000 will insure that lower income families are not affected by rising taxes. Even more, I recommend that this deduction be raised each year according to the rate of inflation.
A tax a rate that ensures those families making over $1,000,000 individually be mandated to pay the 20% minimum tax as Pres. Reagan suggested. This would be a start to reducing the national deficit. It should be, and is, that those people who make over $100 million a year pay nothing! This shows the absolute need for Congress to fix the tax code and close loopholes that favor only the very wealthy to super wealthy. That should be their focus and not cutting those things they are suggesting.
As I approach my 74th birthday, March 12, I remember back about 23 years ago when I told someone that I plan to live to be 100. I said that as a sort of self-encouragement because prior to that day, I was all gloom and doom. I had had my first heart attack two years prior, and it seemed that I was going down the same path as my father who died at the age of 57 after his 3rd heart attack. But what I had failed to realize was that modern medicine had changed to such a degree that I actually had no heart damage because a stent had been placed in the occluded artery and fully opened it up.
Shortly after declaring that I was going to live to be 100, I changed my mind and set that to 101. I stuck with that amount of time for many years. It is, for any American male, a lofty desire but one which I believed to be fully possible. More recently, I changed my longevity to 105, at least! Is this wishful thinking or a possible reality?
In 2021 I had my second heart surgery during which two more stents were placed and then in 2022 another stent was placed. During all that my heart muscle remains uninjured, and this is entirely due to early detection and modern medicine. It is my belief that medicine is progressing quickly enough that it will continue to progress in a manner that it will affect my life as well and help keep me healthy.
I enjoy being active. I still mow my lawn, have a good-sized garden, and am forever looking for ways to make my yard better. Part of this year’s work has been constructing yet another above ground flower bed. And there are a few other projects which must be undertaken. This will keep me active around my house. Additionally, I love bicycle riding and two days ago I went on a 20-mile ride. Here in North Carolina that is no small feat in a state that seems to have disdain for road shoulders. Still, I am fairly innocuous to any dangers surrounding me by being aware of my surroundings. And that is in spite of almost being run over by a woman who decided she should cut me off so she could turn right into a parking lot. Thank God I have good reflexes. While this situation might dissuade others from this form of exercise, I have long viewed it as part of what happens on the roads and have accepted it, though I am still disgusted by some peoples’ disregard for the safety of the bicyclist. Remember, we lose every time when up against any motor vehicle. I will continue to bicycle as long as my body allows which could easily take me into my 90s.
I do have one exception to the above. Should I contract dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, all bets are off. Even so, as long as I have my wits about me, I will continue to soldier on hoping that medicine will assist in my situation before being forced to give in to what becomes the inevitable.
As a sort of an aside, but also a hope to all Americans, regardless of age, there are four things which I consider absolutely necessary on longevity. The first is a positive outlook on life. Next, you must not only go to your primary care doctor annually but listen to your doctor’s recommendations and act upon them in a timely fashion plus do not withhold anything and lie to your doctor. Third, stay active! Figure out what you can do to keep your body moving and do it regularly. And finally, keep your mind active, via reading for example, and do not allow negative feelings to take over your thought process. I read constantly, although that has taken a back seat to my taking a course in “Intensive Italian,” two semesters of the language compressed into one, through Harvard’s School of Continuing Education. This course taxes my mind greatly but it is certainly akin to running a marathon. You probably will not win the marathon but finishing needs to always be the ultimate goal.
Do these things and maybe you too will live to be 105, or longer!
I am appalled by Florida’s new law regarding books in public (K-12) schools. Such a law harkens back to pre-1930 U.S. education when religious oranizations decided what children and adults should read. But even worse, it sounds like 1938 Germany when there were massive book burnings when the government decided what the public could or could not read. That was fascism in action. Please understand that my understanding of such methods and doctrines comes from the fact that I studied U.S. history at Harvard University where I got my master’s degree in that subject. But such history studies depend upon the student’s ability to have an understanding of the world around the United States during its history.
This also reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984 where the government of the United States had become intrusive to the extreme in every person’s daily life.
DeSantis has ordered that “media specialists,” who were once known in public schools as “librarians,” review every book in the school to determine whether there is any objectionable material contained. Objectionable material such as a book a 6th grader was reading in which two boys loved each other. His reaction was one of acceptance which is exactly what we should want of our children in today’s society. So much of the hatred that exists in our country today comes from one group of people deciding that another group are something beneath them.
Florida has also outlawed all A.P. black history classes. This too is what the Nazi’s did when their crusade against Jews, Gypsies, gays, and all groups defined as “undesirables” was put into action. Is this what we are seeing in Florida? It certainly seems so. The Nazis decided that all things connected with these groups must be deleted from the public’s view and they made that happen. This sounds too much like what is happening in Florida!
And while it would be, most likely, a bad decision to put Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence on a K-8 reading list, would it be improper to allow high schoolers to read the books? Shall we then include Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beacher Stowe on such a list because its central characters are black? Or how about the high school senior who decides to do a book report on the biography of Margaret Sanger because she dealt with birth control in the early 20th Century? I can go on and on but I think I have made my point.
I did notice that the books of Raold Dahl were removed from the school library’s shelves that they may be checked for inappropriate material! Are you kidding me! You would have to be extremely ignorant to think that anything said in those books could be offensive for even the youngest grade schooler. And yet, a media specialist my review them.
And who is behind these moves, DeSantis himself? I doubt it. It is my guess, and my opinion, that if you look hard enough you will find that conservative evangelicals are the tail which is wagging the dog here. DeSantis needs this very conservative base to stay in office because Florida is not a deep red state but one which has a large strong liberal party as well.
It may seem odd to compare what is happening to Florida to the Supreme Court’s decision of what pornography is and who can watch it but the parallels are hard to ignore. In each case, a decision on the First Amendment comes into view. I do hope that there is some group in Florida that has taken the torch to fight this law in the Supreme Court on the basis of the First Amendment.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. That is a paraphrase but a most appropriate one. In 1925, the Scopes Trial in Tennesse brough a high school teacher to task for daring to teach evolution to his students. This did not sit well with conservative church leaders and their followers. At that time too, Tennessee had passed a law known as the “Butler Act” which barred the teaching of evolution. Behind the trail were fundamentalist Christians. Clarence Darrow, who was the attorney for the defense, eventually lost the case but it brought into the public’s mind what was acceptable to be taught in public schools and the controversy quickly spread across the country.
Must we have another “Scopes'” style trial to deal with this? Are Floridians’ so numb to the political machinations of the Florida State government that they oppose nothing it brings into law? Where is the outrage? Where is good judgement? Certainly not in Florida! Florida has already barred the teaching of black history so what is next? Seminole history?
It is difficult for Americans who have been allowed only a narrow view of history to make good and well-informed decisions. Yes, Ron DeSantis calls himself a Republican but in truth, he is actually a Fascist.!
Even though I am a self-described independent, I voted for both Democrats and Republicans here in North Carolina last November, I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President. But in the next election, should Biden decide to run again, I may well vote Republican, I consider that a strong possibility. Pres. Biden has proven himself to not be up to the job.
On Face the Nation this morning, on CBS, I got to hear from Republican Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire speak. He is considering a run for President. And for me, Gov. Sununu is an interesting prospect. He is pro-choice, something I consider sacrosanct, but he is decidedly a moderate where he comes for a state, New Hampshire, which has changed for a red state to a blue state due to the influx of former Massachusetts residents. The irony of my wanting a pro-choice candidate is that I am very anti-abortion. However, I do not believe that government at any level should have a say over a woman’s reproductive rights.
I do not consider Pres. Biden, who I voted for, to be fit to lead our country. We desperately need young, or at least much younger, blood in our national politics. Chris Sununu is 48-years-old. I truly like that. It harkens back to JFK who took office when he was 45.
Let me be clear, I voted for Biden in the general election, although in the primaries he was not my choice,
I have been underwhelmed by his performance as president and have been hoping he would not run for a 2nd term.
But now, with the revelation of his improper handling of classified documents, I think it is in the best interest of our government, if not the Democrat Party, for him to resign. Most recently, he cavalier attitude about the documents found next to his Corvette, saying afterall, they were in a locked location, leaves me wondering if anyone in Washington has the slightest knowledge of the proper care and storage of classified documents. As someone who has had very high security clearances, the seriousness of the proper handling of such documents was drilled into us and upon leaving the area security clearances, we were debriefed.
Left-wingers have been quick to point out that there are differences between this and Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. While that is true, the bottom line is that each mishandled these documents. Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines the proper care and handling of classified documents. It states that such documents can only be stored in government approved facilities and containers. President Biden’s garage in Wilmington DE as well as Trumps Mar a Lago home does not meet that requirement.
Furthermore, all security clearances hare granted on a need-to-know basis which calls into question either Biden or Trump’s continued need to know. It is extremely doubtful that either had a continuing need to know upon leaving office. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that in both cases laws have been broken and actions must be taken. From confidential to compartmentalized top secret, the amount of damage to the United States is spelled out with each higher level of greater damage to the United States were they to fall into the wrong hands.
In the case of Pres. Biden, I think it is clear that he must resign from office rather than bring more discredit to the office of the President and to the United States.
President Biden has failed, at least in part, in dealing with the influx of immigrants at our boders, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. His first action should have been activating FEMA, declaring a national emergency regarding these immigrants. Notwithstanding Title 42, President Biden can issue orders that might actually assuage Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. The answer lies in multiple parts.
First, FEMA must be inserted into this dilemma to set up temporary housing and sanitation facilities at the affected areas. Next, he needs to create a robust plan for vetting those desiring asylum. To be certain, there are a lot of undesirables among the refugees. Once vetted the refugees would occupy the facilities of FEMA; a sort Ellis Island of today. For those who can provide an address of a relative living legally in the U.S., a green card would be issued and the refugees allowed to legally enter the U.S. and move to their relative’s address, this would have to be verified of course.
The next part, probably the most difficult of any, would be to confer with the governors of all states. Each governor would be asked to take in a number of refugees in that coincides with their population. The top ten states in population, Texas, New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan would take to most while the bottom 10, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware, Alaska, Montana, Maine, and Hawaii would take the fewest.
Such a move is not without precedent. Until 1923, almost anyone who showed up at our doors were admitted. The only ones turned away were the sickly and those with known criminal records. But one thing that is seldom mentioned about those immigrants is that about 1/3 of them returned to their country of origin.
The countries of origin for the current refugees is mostly from countries in Central America plus Venezuela. What is happening to the people in those nations in unconscionable. Death squads, constant hunger, political repression, among other things make these people flee the country they love. In the late 19th and early 20th century such immigrants came from Poland (occupied by Russia and Germany/Austria), Syria, Persia, Armenia, Croatia, Serbia and others from that region, all fleeing the Ottoman Empire. The parallels are extremely closely related.
My plan, while flawed, is at least a starting point for dealing with this human crisis.
For decades Republicans ran for office on the idea that they could bring about smaller, less expensive government. This, of course, was largely unachievable goal. Why? From the earliest days of our country, the necessity of a strong central government was tantamount to holding together 13 diverse states. When Washington took the reins of our new country, he was what was then called a “Federalist.” It was largely the only political party in the early days of the United States. Those who opposed it were call the “anti-Federalists.” In the federal elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran for the presidency against John Adams calling himself a “Democratic Republican.” Upon winning, he kept his promise by first reducing the size of our Navy to an unsustainable small size.
My expertise on this topic comes from having spent 30+ years employed by the Federal Government, 11 years of which was on active duty in the Army. Additionally, I hold a master’s degree in U.S. History. The Federal Government is responsible for working for the good of the entire nation in which the 50 states are seen as one. All government, from local to federal, exists in part to spend monies gain via taxes of all color.
How does government spend money. Let’s take the U.S. Military’s spending. For fiscal year 2023, the Federal Government has allocated $773 billion. The Defense Department must spend that entire amount by September 30, 2023 or lose it. The Defense Department has certain expenses where it can “spend” its money immediately. That is, paying for all employees to include soldiers for that year. The way all parts of the government spends money is that, in the simplest terms, it says it has given those monies to the soldiers and all DoD personnel. After that, it is sort of difficult process of contracts. In 2022, that amount was $338 billion. (www.usaspending.gov)
Throughout its history the Federal Government has relied heavily on the private sector to meet its needs. For example, from its earliest days, the military has relied upon companies like Smith & Wesson, Springfield Amory, Colt, and others for the latest advancement in guns. The DoD decided it needed a gun to replace the M-16 which the Colt company had been manufacturing since the mid-1960s. It told Colt what it wanted in the new gun, the M-4. The DoD awarded Colt a contract to do the research and development for the new rifle. In my non-accurate, for argument’s sake only, the government award Colt a contract right at the beginning of that year $10 million based on Colt’s proposal for how much that year’s R&D budget. There existed a back-and-forth conversation between Colt and the Federal Government. In June the DoD tells Colt it needs to make a major modification in$1 the specification for that new gun. Colt takes that and by year’s end the government has awarded, and Colt has spent $9 million. That $1 million dollars is required to be sent back to the U.S. Treasury. Now in the new fiscal year Colt tells the DoD that it still needs that $1 million dollars from the previous year plus another $15 million. The Federal Government later that year makes another major change and Colt says it is going to need an additional $4 million. That becomes $4 million of unbudgeted spending. Take that example and spread it among its 3.5 million budgets it spends each year and you can start to see where the excesses come in. Politicians and the public alike see this as government waste. The Federal Government has 226 separate agencies that need funding.
At its lowest level, a government contract can take 100s man-hours of work. Next, that agency puts the contract out for bid. The idea that the government must take the lowest bid is erroneous. There are hundreds of companies that via experience, the government has declared habitually underperforming. These companies are not banned from bidding on the contract, but the awarding agency can use the information to take a bid which is higher than that of the underperforming company. But there is a process by which the government is not hamstrung with annual budgeting which would allow for lower long-term costs. That is, by awarding monies to a different Federal Department the money needed to fund a project. This is called “industrial spending” but is a little used tool.
I worked at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center in Cambridge Massachusetts. For 2/3 of my career there I worked exclusively on DoD funded projects, the last 1/3 on FAA projects. The Volpe Center does not appear on the Federal Budget for what is called “line item” spending. That is, when the DOT puts in its annual budget, the Volpe Center is not listed. That is because the entirety of the Center’s budget comes from contracts awarded to it from other agencies. When those agencies give the Volpe Center its money, the U.S. Treasury sees that as money spent and therefore not bounded by a fiscal year. That is, let’s say the DoD gives Volpe a $50 award. During the fiscal year Volpe only spends $20 of the awarded money. Because the Treasury sees this as spent money, the Volpe Center is not required to return the money to the Treasury. I am suggesting that the entire Federal Government if it found ways to “spend” its money in a matter where it does not have to budget each year for certain programs.
Another way to reduce “waste” is via a process called IV&V, independent validation and verification. This is simply an oversight by another agency to ensure that its awarded monies are being spent in the most cost-effective ways. IV&V is a method where a single person can oversee a large contract at a very low cost. That is, the cost of using IV&V far outweighs the cost were it not used.
The most visible effect of using the above processes is that waste, fraud and abuse can be easily managed if not entirely eliminated in any single contract. It would be a wise move for all portions of the Federal Government to understand exactly how the Volpe Center works and apply it to its own agencies.
There was a time, prior to the Interstate Highway System, that rail travel reigned supreme. Post-World War 2 saw an end to that when the Eisenhower administration took the German idea of the Autobahn and applied it to America. To be clear, this was vital to America’s growth and has proven itself over the decades. But now with oil prices constantly increasing, and the Interstate system in desperate need of a huge influx of cash for repairs alone, we must consider alternative transportation.
In 1971 at AMTRAK’s inception, the idea was to keep intercity passenger rail service alive as private railroads were abandoning service. But AMTRAK made itself unattractive from its inception as it pared the existing intercity service to about 1/4 of what it had been immediately prior. AMTRAK’s service map of 2022 shows only a small expansion since its inception.
Service is lacking to many cities which defies logic. For example, there are no trains traveling from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, an extremely popular road and air route. Why is this? There is no service from Atlanta to Florida, also a very popular road and air route. Why? And to further that point, there is no Chicago to Florida route, one which actually existed at AMTRAK’s inception. Again, why? And there are many other examples, Dallas to Los Angeles, Atlanta to Savannah and Charleston, Detroit to Cleveland, Cleveland to St. Louis via Columbus, Dayton and Indianapolis, Memphis to Atlanta via Nashville, and there are a host of other potential routes, particularly in the densely populated Northeast. For reasons not given the public, California’s inland route extending from the San Francisco area through central California stop well shy of Los Angeles at Bakersfield. Why? Worst of all, I saved the best for last, there is no service from Dallas to Houston! The state of Texas, however, is endeavoring to remedy that situation.
Some of those problems extend from non-receptive Republican controlled states who view AMTRAK as an unnecessary luxury!
Another issue with AMTRAK is its scheduling on existing routes. If, for example, you go to the AMTRAK site and query a trip from New York to Chicago you will find a single train that does not require changing trains, the Lake Shore Limited. The Sunset Limited runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles only 3 days a week. On that route sits Houston Texas and Phoenix Arizona which are the nation’s 4th and 5th largest cities respectively. To be clear, Phoenix actually has no direct connection and residents of that city must travel south to Maricopa to catch a train between the 5th largest and 2nd largest cities.
There are only four areas of the country which receive good, not excellent AMTRAK service: The Northeast Corridor, Boston to Washington DC, California, San Francisco to San Diego. and Florida, Washington DC to several Florida destinations, most notable, Miami. Finally, Chicago with destinations of Milwaukee, Detroit, and St. Louis. I left out Indianapolis, with a metro population of over 2 million people out because AMTRAK allows it a single train that runs only three days a week!
AMTRAK does virtually no advertising. When was the last time you saw a commercial extolling to benefits of rail travel over airplanes. No lines to board, no security checkpoints, and when heavy weather closes airports the trains will still complete their trips excepting the most serious of conditions, hurricanes and blizzards. And even in blizzard conditions, trains may still be able to complete their trips.
Let’s look at a trip from Atlanta to New Orleans. Right now, airlines are publishing 1 hour 45-minute flight times point to point. Add in the 2-hour preflight arrival and the 1-hour post flight from New Orleans airport to downtown, this includes exiting the aircraft, finding ground transportation and dealing with traffic. Now your 1:45 minute flight has turned into a total of nearly 6 hours! The AMTRAK schedule shows a 12-hour trip between those points. Seems to be a negative but is it. Let’s go back to the flight. If you leave Atlanta on your flight at 9AM, considering the 7AM arrival time necessary, you will arrive in New Orleans about noontime, or time for lunch. Now we are at 1PM and only the afternoon ahead. The train leaves 9AM from Atlanta, arrives 9PM in New Orleans and the cost is $39 coach compared to the over $300 coach seat on the airline! In terms of pure economics and also stress, the train suddenly looks like the far superior choice. This is not even considering the people who must go between these two cities, cannot afford the air fare and do not want to sit on a bus. And in most of America, the people who are most drawn to rail travel are those of lesser means. This excludes the Northeast Corridor where businesspeople of all sorts regularly take the train.
The main hinderance to more people taking the train is the lack of choice in trains available and a lack of trains which make truly limited stops thereby decreasing the amount of time between any two points. Right now, AMTRAK simply does not have enough trains equipment to cover the suggestions I have made. Even more, the fleet it does have is aging and in need of replacement.
If we are ever to look like the passenger rail systems Europe enjoys, we are going to have to commit to a very large outlay of money to accomplish this. I can only guess that a 10-year $100 billion commitment might fall short. But in 10 years what are gas prices going to be, and what are air fares going to be. I am also guessing that the American public will be clamoring for exactly the extent and levels of service to which I have alluded. And finally, we can no longer afford the upkeep of America’s sprawling Interstate system which much of it needs extensive repair and replacement.
First, I must give credit to the Boston Globe, November 12, 2022, p. A4, for that heading, it being, excepting the setoff word, climate, a direct copy of its subtitle to “War may have put climate goals out of reach.”
I found this article absolutely stunning until I read its contents and then did a bit of research. It amazes me the amount climate change deniers still in the world today. Even more, those in political power who take no, or little action towards changing their nation’s responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas epidemic. It must be noted that most scientists, probably an overwhelming number, are agreement over our impended doom from these emissions.
The chart below lists the greenhouses emission by each country’s total in descending order. Notice the United States, which claims to be doing so much, is in the number 2 position! This is entirely unacceptable. Number 3 India is an interesting case that along with its status on this chart, it also has the ignominious reputation of have amount the 10 most polluted cities in the world, mixed in are Pakistan and other 3rd world countries.
Conservative Americans are amount the first to deny global warning and liberals are shouting about it. But in truth, it is the liberals who are failing the most simply because most compromise on issues where holding your ground is called for.
For the United States, there needs to be a much more concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions by about 80% and well before 2031, the deadline. The United States cannot be a world leader in this fight when it comes in 2nd in total emissions worldwide. But the above chart is only referencing CO2 pollution. The chart below is referencing Methane pollution for the purpose of this discussion. I have not been able, thus far, to find a country-by-country accounting for this sort of pollution. In the United States, however, two of the most prolific forms of this comes for natural gas leakage at drilling sites and their pipelines, and also from fracking where the search for oil always finds a collection of natural gas which is supposed to be burned off but that only adds to the CO2 pollution.
For at least 30 years now, Europeans have been taking the problem with pollution seriously. Many cities, excepting England, have taken the tack of making their inner cities less friendly to automobiles, and in some cases, banning them altogether. In place of automobiles, they have doubled down of rail transportation and well set out bicycle ways.
Such tactics in the United States would be met with heavy opposition and politicians bent on saving their political butts would bend to that opposition rather than doing the right thing.
Consider, there is no city in the United States that can properly handle 4 lanes of traffic entering its limits with any ease at all, leading to a 40-mile commute taking as much as 1.5 hours or more. All cities on the East Coast plus Chicago, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and a host of other cities cannot continue to maintain these roads and the problems that go with them for much longer.
Consider that the average length of a railroad coach is 67′ and that of an automobile almost 15′. Simple math tells us that even the 4 automobiles, were each carrying 3 individuals totaling 12 total is a far cry for the 60 to 100 passengers a single railroad car can carry. A rapid transit car can carry at least 50 people, light rail cars and buses the same. Highway maintenance on average, costs $14,500 per year. By shutting down one lane of a 4-lane highway in both directions for 25 miles saves $750k per year. Now, take the New Jersey turnpike which extends 41 miles from the Garden State parkway to Exit 7, Bordentown and is 8 lanes wide. Remove the 4 inner lanes in each direction, a total of 328 miles, and you have a total savings of $4.7 million a year. New Jersey has an exemplary commuter rail system as well-as an extensive bus system.
In probably every city their existing commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail and buses systems would have to be both modernized and expanded first. But this would give the public several years to plan on the eventual shut down of highway traffic lanes.
Such a bold step forward would cost in the 10s of trillions of dollars to properly implement. Couple that with all cities denying entry to their city center by private automobiles, another public screaming point, and inner-city pollution declines dramatically.
Right now, when it comes to public transportation, the United States is little more than a third-world country. Countries like Italy, Germany, Holland, France and a host of others, put the U.S. to shame in their approach to public transportation. Even China, the world’s greatest polluter, has a rail transportation superior to ours.
Why is this true. First, it America’s continuing love affair with the automobile, next, politicians of all stripes failing to inform the public of what should, by now, be painfully obvious, global warming is happening, and at an ever-increasing rate, just ask Floridians.
There is, however, one form of public transportation, which is one of the largest polluters in the U.S., the nation’s airlines! How do we reduce that? Simple, convince Americans to take AMTRAK on medium length journeys over air travel. This, of course, will require a heavy investment in AMTRAK but the rewards far outweigh the costs. Already, the Northeast Corridor of AMTRAK, from Boston to Washington DC, is heavily traveled by businessmen as well as private travelers. But routes such as Cleveland to Chicago, Atlanta to Miami, Dallas to Houston, Chicago to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Detroit.
Americans, living near to large cities, must learn a new way of getting around or be culpable for getting the globe to “point of no return,” that point where warming accelerates at a rate no one can stop. Is that nine years hence? I do not know but it seems many scientists are thinking that way. Who are you going to believe, your next-door neighbor, you politicians, or the scientists?
I am only showing the pollution type below, that of “particulate matter” and in this case, that of plastics.
On final note on this. When I was taking a course in Astrophysics at Harvard University, my professor made a point of saying that anything which produces heat adds to global warming. That polluter is nuclear power and everything else which has the side effect of producing heat.
Ever since 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt took on Herbert Hoover for the Presidency, first in the mind of voters has been economics, with the exception of 1944, a war year. Roosevelt’s campaign built on the failures of the Hoover administrations failures in the banking community, something Hoover, trained as an engineer, had little clue on a cure to the nation’s ills. In most elections the cry of “it’s the economy stupid!” has taken center stage. This election cycle is no different!
For about two months following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Democrats made hay. But since then, starting in early August, inflation and supply chain shortages have been front and center in the national consciousness. Democrats have stubbornly stuck to their abortion issue.
The year between presidential elections, the party not in power has historically made gains and frequently taken control of the house and senate. That, all by itself, should have put the Democrat Party on alert. But add to it, inflation and the declining purchasing power of the dollar, Americans, as history shows, will vote with their pocketbooks!
Nancy Pelosi has a compelling long-term outlook for our nation’s future. But that, unfortunately, is not how the American public at large votes. Democrats needed to keep such issues among elected officials and then educate the American public in non-national voting years, the importance of such issues. But even more, and along those lines, Democrats have shown little action in showing America why Republicans have no better chance of changing the economic climate than do they. They have not shown that what is being experienced in the US is in fact a global issue in economics. By simply making Americans look beyond America’s borders would at least give Americans pause to reconsider political campaign claims.
The Democrat’s war cry should have been “What is the Republican plan to change our economic ills?” Republicans do not have a plan, just a war cry. Leading Democrats needed to admit that they, any more than Republicans, can do precious little to cure what is actually a global issue. About 23.5% of Americans have a college degree, however, most of them have no education in economics. In a country where education should be of primary concern, few politicians, from any party, take the time to actually educate their electorate. I suspect that is because to do so would cause that electorate to actually question their political claims.
Democrats resistance towards addressing the top 5 issues on Americans’ mind, none being abortion, will not only lead to their losing both the house and senate, but in my estimation, the Senate will break 53 – 47 in the Senate and about 235 – 200 in the house, both in favor of Republicans.
You Didn't Ask But..... 