Bob Howitt Blog

Ah yes, the existential question: who am I? And its accompaniment: why am I here?

Resolving the second question will require a different essay and the finest effort of the newly formed

AI community. One can envision an ultra-fast search for answers that will take us factually back to our very origins and philosophically through a lengthy list of erudite theories, perhaps culminating in a futuristic world that includes multiple individual options ala “Dark Matter.”

Fortunately, TechnoWorld, bless their irreligious souls, has brought us an answer to “Who am I.”

We are the embodiment of a list of characteristics designed so that we may function, buy stuff, and interact according to the rules laid down by TechnoWorld.

We are:

Algorithms that tell us who we are … for transactional purposes

No-reply messages … for one-way agreements

Portals … to depersonalize relationships

Default decisions … the information is too complicated to separately analyze

Likes … of people, products, ideas we know nothing about except as per TechnoWorld

Data Points that represent the numbers by which we live … as per the algorithms thus created

Phone prompts designed to drive us back to the website … or insane

Clicks that make decisions really easy … and profitable to TechnoWorld

Log ins, Log outs … the rhythm of our daily routine

 

We are that which is displayed on a screen. We need not even react; the software of our I-devices knows us and takes our hand so that we may, after some twists and turns, deposit money in the bank account of TechnoWorld. There can be no substantive complaint if something goes awry; we accepted those multi-page agreements of legalese between us as individuals and trillion dollar corporations.

Human contact is minimized in the relationship with TechnoWorld.

There is no stress, as conventionally defined, in the process of an on-line life per se. However, it is becoming more widely recognized that  acceptance of an on-line life as being normal produces stress that is being baked into the individual’s psyche. There is no longer the sense of real community, of the personal interaction which leads to growth and a life of true richness.

And there is nowhere to hide from TechnoWorld.

 

 

Once upon a time, we had slavery. It was an excellent business strategy because it drastically reduced labor costs, thereby increasing profits.

Once upon a time, women could not vote. Another excellent idea as they could then focus their energies on making babies and putting a good hot meal in front of their families.

Once upon a time, the guaranty that a person could have a firearm was equally logical. Muskets had to be at the ready for hunting, for chasing away them varmints, for protection if the government turned tyrannical, and, yes, for shooing away those who objected to a person pushing west for more land.

Fast forward.

Having decided that slavery was, you know, on the sleazy side of human interaction, we chucked it; unfortunately, racism has not been so easy to eradicate – but that’s for another essay.

After considerable bitching and moaning, men decided to let women vote. Disconcertingly, they are now moving ahead in all fields, even business. Not to worry, though, control is still male.

In some ways, the most undiluted progress has been with firearms. Very few individuals hunt to put food on the table, the varmint problem is not a real issue to most, and the land situation is a defensive, not offensive situation. Yet we can pick up an AR-15 and blow an entire classroom away before this sentence is finished.

**

Once upon a time, men and women collaborated to produce multiple babies. The infant death rate made this mandatory if a family was to have the critical mass needed to get work done. It also meant that a concept like the mental health of children had no relevance.

Once upon a time, the issue of which drugs were legal, which passed the standards of Western medicine, which represented the beliefs of underdeveloped countries – all was crystal clear.

Once upon a time, you knew your neighbors, even when geographically distant because of the large farms involved. You might get ticked off if a lazy mule wandered onto your property, but you were more likely to demonstrate your displeasure by kicking its ass than by scurrying to get your musket.

Fast forward.

Fertility rates are basically at replacement levels, we are acutely aware of how mental health is a serious issue at all age levels, it is difficult to draw the line between legal and illegal drugs, and farms have been sold to giant agri-businesses. But I can still get my AR-15 because of its direct lineage to that trusty musket owned by our forefathers. (Wait, are we actually getting prepared for a tyrannical government … yipes, that’s another essay idea … and a truly scary thought!)

**

Neighbors — what/who are they? I know somebody lives next door and I wave when its unavoidable, but that’s it. When I trot out my AR-15 and eliminate a bunch of lives, I know my neighbors can be counted upon to tell the world, “I didn’t really know him.”

Community leaders will be on point with the truism, “we are shocked that this massacre could happen in our town of good law-abiding, hard-working people.”

Politicians will run to the nearest camera and, from opposite points on the political spectrum, proclaim “we must pass legislation,” and “the availability of an AR-15 has nothing to do with this tragedy.” Non-profit foundations and public-minded companies and citizens alike will provide money, food, and gift cards to the families affected.

Eventually, after the inevitable gun reform discussion, the cry will go up in the political arena, “we tried, but………….” On the other hand, funds will be available for more security devices and trained personnel at schools. And we will encourage the formation of committees – police and mental health professionals – who will meet to assess when a red flag is to be waved.

**

Isn’t change wonderful!

 

As a parent grieves over the loss of a child, she can console herself by thinking about all the changes that have taken place in her life and in society since the parent’s birth. Too bad that their child did not live long enough to see any change from our reverence for that musket … and the AR-15.

 

This survey of twenty questions created by the author was sent to 63 people, of whom 28 responded. Some chose more than one answer. Some struggled with understanding whether their response was about “what is” or “what should be.” The instructions could have been clearer. Results are being posted on my blog and being sent to each respondent.

                                         

 

1. What is the feeling among foreign countries toward the USA gun situation?

 

*they do not care.                [1]

*they are stunned at what we accept in terms of deaths by guns.     [24]

*they wonder when their own outbreaks might happen.           [1]

*they respect the American reasoning regarding gun rights.      [0]

*they know the USA is highly individualistic so are not surprised at the results.    [6]

 

Respondent Comment: They are surprised that the USA suffers from a lot of mass shootings; they do not think it is a gun problem but more of a mental health problem.

 

Author’s Comment: There is an overwhelming consensus in the answer to this question.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Historical: the right to bear arms

 

*at the time of it becoming a right, the available armament was a musket; the right now extends to any make of firearm that has been invented since then.  [13]

*individuals should be allowed to purchase bump stocks that convert semi-automatics to automatics.           [0]

*individuals with three felonies on their record should not be allowed to purchase any guns.           [10]

*individuals with repeated violations of domestic violence orders should not be allowed to have guns.         [19]

*individuals buying guns should sign a document indicating their reason for wanting a gun.             [6]

*individuals should be allowed to carry guns openly in public places.      [0]

*individuals should be subject to a thorough background check and required to undergo training.     [18]

 

Respondent Comment: There should be a mental health screening.

 

Author’s Comment: There is much support here for different restrictions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Contemporary School-based Strategies

 

*all students should be trained in handling guns.         [4]

*every school should have a metal detector at the entrance.     [11]

*teachers should carry guns.             [1]

*parents should be required to receive active shooter training.                [6]

*none of the above             [4]

*no answer            [3]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Students and schools are the victims here. No teachers should have to carry guns in order to teach academic content. Schools are suffering with this issue because no collective will exists to deal with gun control. (b) School personnel should be trained in dealing with crises, including shooter situations. There should be protocols for getting a fast police response. (c) I’m not sure I see the appropriate strategy nor what the right one should be. I would prefer for armed security guards to be on school premises. Submit teachers to an extensive background check and allowed to have access to a gun (not so sure). (d) Federal and state funding should be allocated to researching root causes of school violence and implementing curbing measures.

 

Author’s Comment: Lots of frustration is evident in the answers, non-answers, and comments.

 

1. The Gun Business

 

*all dealers should be treated equally.            [7]

*dealers who sell guns that are disproportionately involved in crimes should have their licenses revoked.     [9]

*dealers have nothing to do with how their product is used.     [6]

*if drug retailers have been found liable for their participation in overprescribing opioids and thus contributing to addiction, gun dealers should have the same legal exposure.               [18]

*there is regulation of ghost guns; a lower court had said, “a weapon parts kit is not a firearm.”      [0]

*technological changes, e.g., a smart gun that can only be fired by its owner, will become widespread.          [1]

 

Respondent Comment: All dealers should have to meet major requirements to become dealers and should be required to have very strict regulations on who they sell guns to.

 

Author’s Comment: In light of current litigation trends, the biggest response is apropos.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Why the USA is different

 

*the country was born in violence and has had few periods of time when violence was absent.       [5]

*it is more concerned with individual rights than are its counterparts.    [14]

*people come to this country to be safer; having a gun is consistent with this motivation.                 [2]

*it desires to maintain a historical right even as other historical situations have been rectified.         [9]

*it is fearful that the evident rancorous political split eventually will lead to violence.         [7]

*it predominantly treats drug addiction as a crime, not a health problem.             [10]

*its extreme financial inequality inevitably means a desire for retribution and the use of guns.        [2]

*NRA’s outgoing president, now accused of misusing funds, quintupled membership from 1991 to 2023. [8]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Gun ownership is a Constitutional amendment; it is ridiculously hard to change. (b) In the USA, there are no citizenship obligations (mandatory service) ala Switzerland and Israel. (c) The right to bear arms against aggressive, capricious, overweening government (monarchic) authority was encoded in the DNA of the country and was further built into the confederate states pre and post civil war. And the modern Tea Party/anti-government parties and players continue to worry about invasion of their homes and therefore there’s no political will to mess with the core. (d) Mental health is a HUGE issue in this country.

 

Author’s Comment: A wide variety of thoughts about this question are evident.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Regarding your current community, would you rather:

 

*live in one without any guns.          [16]

*live in one with a gun in every house.           [1]

*have neighbors you trust, regardless of their gun ownership.    [10]

*have a restriction on what type of gun your neighbor could own.          [9]

 

Author’s Comment: The preference is clear.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

1. With respect to age:

 

*if you can die for the country at 18, you should be allowed to have a gun.           [5]

*there should be a minimum age of 21.         [8]

*until the head of a household is at least 30, there should be a limit of one gun per household.       [5]

*each state should set its own age requirement, and it need not connect to other age restrictions.                 [5]

*no answer            [5]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) I don’t agree much with any since I don’t believe guns should be allowed to be purchased, but since that is the case, then the head of household option is what I would pick. (b) Brain development isn’t finished until age 25 I think. That would be a good minimum age and there should be a restriction on the quantity and types of guns. (c) Nobody should own a gun unless they are in the military or a police force. (d) Gun ownership should be consistent with science regarding brain formation and the capacity to make responsible decisions that take into account consequences.

 

Author’s Comment: The comments bring science into the mix of decision making.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The political reaction to mass shootings is:

 

*no response.       [4]

*a belief that governments can do nothing about the situation.               [8]

*outrage by gun reform advocates.  [15]

*a belief that the NRA has 4.2 million members and will make any substantive legal changes impossible.      [7]

*a repeat of the saying that “guns do not kill people, only people kill people.”      [13]

*a flood of opinion editorials from reform advocates.                  [5]

 

Respondent Comment: Thoughts and Prayers.

 

Author’s Comment: Multiple words, minimal actions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The local reaction to mass shootings at schools is:

 

*initial or renewed interest in gun reform.     [15]

*receipt of an influx of money from elsewhere.             [2]

*greater attention to the need for mental health counselors.    [10]

*disbelief that it could happen in their community.      [15]

*outrage at the inability of law enforcement to minimize the damage, i.e., the body count.              [6]

*debate over the particulars of a suitable memorial for the victims.        [1]

 

Author’s Comment: Societally there is more focus on mental health.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Regarding a hypothetical community with half the median income of your current area and with half the population being minority, would you rather:

 

*live there with nobody owning a gun.           [12]

*live there with every house having a gun.    [2]

*the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing on my attitude toward guns.           [16]

*have a restriction on what type of gun your neighbor could own.          [8]

 

Author’s Comment: Belief that the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing is inconsistent with other studies of how people react to changed environments.

 

1. The second Amendment has communal language as well as individual rights.

The former reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

In reading this, what is your reaction:

 

*it does not change any of my underlined material above.         [16]

*it provides precedent for laws regarding open carry that enhance security for all.             [2]

*gun ownership makes us all safer.  [0]

*anybody can pick certain historical language to justify any position they wish to take.       [14]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) The lines between state and federal are so blurred that this does not make sense in today’s discerning of what the security of a free state means.(b) Mass shootings and individual shootings by handgun users are the cost of protection against government takeover.

 

Author’s Comment: Contrary to the responses above, it is the “precedent” response that is being folded into the on-going case for gun reform.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2022. There were 45,000 gun deaths in 2022. Which is the correct breakdown:

 

*half suicides, 40% homicides, 10% other.      [5]

*half homicides, 20% suicides, 10% accidents, 20% law enforcement.      [2]

*54% suicides, 43% homicides, 1% accidents, 2% law enforcement          [10]

*suicides plus homicides: 60%, 20% accidents, 20% law enforcement.     [7]

*no answer           [4]

 

Author’s Comment: The correct answer was chosen by ten respondents.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Assume what is called a Red Flag Situation, in which an individual discloses to their psychiatrist that they have on-going anger issues and are thinking of shooting somebody. The psychiatrist:

 

*does nothing.     [4]

*tells the police.       [14]

*tells the police only if the statement by the patient is repeated three times. [3]

*asks the patient if there are guns in their house         [16]

 

Respondent Comment: Depends on the gun laws where the psychiatrist practices, could be any of the responses above are what actually happen; I would want the guns unavailable to the patient at least for a time.

 

Author’s Comment: It is unclear what the psychiatrist should do, seemingly even when red flag procedures have been openly discussed.

 

Assume the police have received the information above. They:

 

*do nothing.         [6]

*tell a judge.         [4]

*put a patrol car at the patient’s house.         [2]

*look at the patient’s criminal record and see if there is reasonable cause to arrest them.    [7]

*refer the matter to an existing committee of mental health and police professionals.        [14]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Tell a judge and request that the guns be confiscated. (b) Threats should be investigated and patients questioned; guns should be removed due to history and threats. (c) Tell a judge in order to execute a search warrant. If a minor, open communication with parent(s) and school.

 

Author’s Comment: The lead answer needs to have a sense of urgency; time can be of the essence.

 

Assume the judge has received the information above. They:

 

*do nothing          [6]

*issue a warrant for the individual’s arrest.    [3]

*issue a ruling empowering the police to remove weapons from the patient’s house.         [16]

*issue a ruling that puts the patient on a “cannot buy guns” list sent to every gun dealer in the state.            [15]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) Issue a ruling empowering the police to conduct a search warrant, and if warranted, remove weapons from the patient’s house. (b) Issue a ruling committing the patient to at least a 72-hour hold allowing the person to talk about their issues.

 

Author’s Comment: The preference in these responses is for action to be taken.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The number of guns in circulation is (in millions):

 

*262       [1]

*312       [2]

*415       [14]

*506       [9]

*no answer           [2]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. In 2005, the federal ban on selling AR-15 type assault weapons ended. Since then, how many of these guns have been sold (in millions):

*14         [1]

*52         [9]

*36         [5]

*25         [12]

*no answer           [1]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Which line represents the gun ownership rate per 100 population for USA, Yemen, Serbia:

 

*82, 46, 112          [2]

*121, 53, 39          [25]

*54, 89, 101          [1]

 

Author’s Comment: The top response number is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ .                       S. A parent:

*Has no responsibility for any child of mine who is at least 18 years of age and therefore an adult                 [1]

*Has responsibility for any child of mine up to age 25 who is living in my house                  [6]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional, I must report it                                [2]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is making violent threats, I must report it        [12]

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional and making violent threats, I must report it                [12]

*If guns in my house are properly stored under lock and key, I need not report anything, regardless of what my child is saying                [0]

*If my child is making violent threats and there are guns in the house, I must report it      [10]

 

Author’s Comment: There is lack of clarity on the responsibility of the parent. However, a recent court case did find a mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter when it was her son who had pulled the trigger.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Concerning rising suicide rates and guns:

 

*there is no connection.     [3]

*greater availability of guns has meant more suicides.                [24]

*if people simply locked up their guns, there would be fewer suicides.   [2]

 

Respondents Comments: (a) The guns make the suicide quicker; however, if a person wants to commit suicide, they will find a way no matter if a gun is not available. (b) Suicides will happen regardless of whether or not guns are available.

 

Author’s Comment: what is missing in the question is the issue of rates of suicide intention versus actual suicides and whether ease of obtaining guns means the carried out rate is greater than would otherwise be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts from a Layman

Publications which inform my daily reading, in hard copy if the truth be told, are the

“Wall Street Journal” and the “New York Times.” I hereby request forgiveness for not littering everything below with footnotes; besides, an occasional thought is unique to the undersigned.

Weaving every discussion item into a logical flow, replete with extended examples, is a challenge suitable for a book format, not for this modest essay. One would have to figure out which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the good intention or the unfortunate outcome, the theory or the evidence, mental health challenges or the consequences thereof.

Moreover, as a well-known advocate of school choice once said, and it’s true about many policy debates, “it ain’t about the research, it’s about the will.”

Most often, conversations about meaningful reforms simply beg the unwritten but pervasive question: do those with money/power, living in a different world, care? Are they are only energized when an issue hits close to home or they begin pondering whether they want to be the richest person in the cemetery.

Drug Reform

Drugs as defined here are those whose usage traditionally has been deemed illegal. Excessive consumption of legal drugs has its own downside, but historically that has suggested a separate set of factors. However, as the lines increasingly become blurred, that prior separation will be a distinction that is not much of a difference.

Data Points

*Drug overdoses in the past 24 years have killed more Americans than all its wars combined. There are an estimated 48 million individuals with a substance disorder; one in 20 are getting help.

*Half of those in criminal court and half of those in jail or prison have a substance use disorder. Some 15% of inmates are said to have an opioid use disorder specifically.  (Meanwhile, the Sackler family is content with the $10 billion they took out of Purdue Pharma in 2008-17; the debate about who gets what from its settlement money of $6 billion does not touch the prior withdrawals. The Sacklers should not receive lifetime immunity, given the deadly consequences of their marketing of opioids.)

Discussion Comments

*There should be a clear acknowledgement that prior large-scale efforts, both in this country and elsewhere, have been a waste of money, with no impact on drug addiction. This is the negative lead.

*The positive lead is that there is knowledge of what works programmatically yet there is insufficient money and staffing for that success. Medication, behavioral therapy, and counseling are reportedly as effective as statins are for cholesterol or aspirin regarding heart attacks.

Methadone (introduced in 1972) is proven to be effective; however, doctors and pharmacists can only prescribe it for pain. Addicted individuals must go to a specialized clinic.  P.S. It would be helpful for medical schools to require addiction training.

*There is a choice to be made: treat all the social ills that perhaps foster addiction (admittedly a desirable goal) or call it a health issue and proceed accordingly. Only the latter makes sense in terms of a direct approach, inclusive of evidence-based programs and reasonable timeframes.

*Accompanying the health-based approach to drug reform should be on-going, clear, succinct publicizing of the dramatic negative statistics associated with addiction. Probably a coalition of healthcare and police professionals should produce the document to avoid it being politicized. PSA material should be provided to all forms of the media.

*A distinction must be made between usage and addiction.

*Health insurance coverage, inclusive of Medicare and Medicaid, will be needed without squabbling. Society pays either way.

*There should be no hesitancy on funding treatment programs of all kinds, including those based in churches which do not use mainstream approaches,  or others like AA which have a spiritual component.

*A special program is needed for those whose addiction is directly tied to a conflict-based PTSD diagnosis. It must be organized, managed, and led by veterans and specialists in the field.

*The existence of different states having different laws with respect to marijuana should be recognized as a positive. This diversity, properly researched (control group test comparisons), should shed light on the impact of marijuana usage, its relevance as a gateway drug, specific results regarding addiction, connection to mental health, and ties to improper driving. (People crossing state lines and entering different jurisdictions may confuse the data a little, as would inconsistent legal enforcement.)

*Clarity on what is a crime and what is an illness is a necessity.

*There is no safe usage amount for fentanyl; there are no long-term users, unlike the case with heroin.*While it is controversial whether drug addicts must be compelled to seek treatment, it seems logical that if addiction leads to negative social behavior, the public has an interest in requiring treatment. Similarly, if insurance is to play a pivotal role in thinking about addiction as a health issue, it is fair for the insurer to have some requirements, e.g., enrollment in a rehab program. The latter should have length to it; history indicates that short-term stints are highly correlated with relapses.

Police Reform

Somewhere along the analytical and social policy line, there should be thought given to the impact of single-parent families, more specifically, the absent father situation and its connection to other reforms. Prisons are not populated by large numbers of educated, non-drug using individuals from intact families.

Data Points

The FBI’s classification called Violent Index Felonies (murder/non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, rape, aggravated assault) has a 45% clearance rate.  Property Index Felonies (burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, arson) have a 17% clearance rate. Who said that crime does not pay! The irony is that it is not uncommon for people who are jaundiced about the police in general to simultaneously want them to be more forceful in their neighborhood, protecting the stores which they patronize and which may be owned or at least managed by individuals known to the community.

Drug law offenders comprise 15% of state prisoners, which in turn are 90% of total prisoners in the country’s system of incarceration. About 20% of drug offenders are out within six months; another 25% are out in months seven through twelve. (Obvious note: drug reform and police reform are inextricably linked, as is gun reform (and approaches to interacting with the homeless population).

The rate of prisoners having Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASPD) is ten times the average for all adults. Rates of substance use disorder (SUD) are similarly far above the average. See above comment plus the need for more mental health counselors in general. There is something called the criminogenic effect: incarceration which leads to more crime after the release of the prisoner. With the above changes, this should be reduced.

Over 40% of Americans either own a firearm or live with somebody who does. Gun reform is therefore a related necessity. Maybe the lawsuit brought by a group of nuns will prove useful; the death of innocents seems to have no effect on the NRA and gun manufacturer executives. Perhaps some police departments would welcome different gun laws or simply stronger enforcement of existing regulations, given the underpublicized nature of single fatality gunshot situations.

Discussion Comments

Acknowledge the poor reputation that police departments have among the minority population, particularly African Americans. The root causes of this disaffection are multi-layered and multi-generational. This writing is not intended to be a deep dive into the history of policing in America. Suffice it to say that anybody who does not realize there is a problem is living a sheltered, advantaged life. The creation of trust is critical.

*Have an annual Report to the Public that is discussed at an Open House. This report would be from each police department, making it readily understandable by the relevant constituency.

*Establish an internal disciplinary threshold, based on frequency and severity, that elicits the public release of a policeman’s status.

*Create a position for a Mental Health specialist pertinent to the use of red flag guidelines. Mental health is right there at the police department intersection of drug and homeless reform.

*End the practice of paying bonuses based on the number of traffic or parking tickets issued.

*Implement as many neighborhood patrols without guns as feasible.

*As a policy, there must be extended talking preceding any use of guns, unless a life is threatened.

*Similarly, police must be trained to shoot to incapacitate, not to kill.

*Oversight boards must have direct access to, e.g., footage from police videos. Many had thought the routine use of cameras would reduce the number of “awkward” police-individual interactions, but often the police have been reluctant to release the video on a timely basis or even at all.

Homelessness Reform

In a separate essay, an update on UBI (Universal Basic Income) enumerates the many ways in which a UBI would be beneficial. While it does not specifically discuss an impact on homelessness, the significance of a UBI is apparent. Between requiring a homeless person to access a long list of social services as a requirement for financial assistance and providing that person UBI funds for their own decision-making, the preference at the outset would be the latter. Only if the chosen path were clearly negative would the homeless person be pulled back into a set of required social services.

Data Points

“The federal programs for public housing, including Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers, serve 287,000 fewer households than they did at the peak in 2004.” The number of eligible households without aid has grown dramatically. Even subsidized apartments built with Low Income Housing Tax Credits are above the affordability level of former prospective occupants.

*What is “affordable” housing? It’s simply math, with a bunch of variables. If the rent limit is 30% of income and the latter is $20,000 per year, then the monthly rent has to be a maximum of $500. The only way that a builder can put up such a structure is if there is a waiver concerning a dizzying array of zoning laws and building regulations, none involving a definition of safety that a low income person would care about. Tax incentives are part of the mix, but here again there is the core question: does society care enough to absorb some discomfort in treating the issue of homelessness. The pervasiveness of NIMBY suggests the answer is negative.

*New York City’s Department of Social Services has an astounding 600 sites operating under non-profit contracts. The count of specialized mental health shelters is 37. There is a mental health data base, PSYCKES, but shelter workers cannot access it.

Discussion Comments

*Acknowledge that the reasons behind a person, or a family, becoming homeless are incredibly complex. A safe place to live is the necessary but insufficient condition to “solving” homelessness.

*There need to be zoning changes, with easier access to permits for mobile homes and the new category of tiny homes. This is particularly critical outside of tight urban areas. Factory-built housing is cheaper and can be done faster, but thus far accounts for a tiny segment of total housing production.

*Mental health facilities must be expanded at the community level and they must be accommodating to those with drug addiction health issues. Presumptively, the more that homeless people have a safe abode, their stress level will decline somewhat and their mental situations will be improved. That many will still need relevant social services, and job training in many instances, is a given.

*If a homeless person is receiving financial assistance for their residence, they must abide by any mandatory social service requirement.

*Analytically, as always, there is the challenge of patient privacy versus the public’s right to information needed to evaluate the pros and cons of different reform efforts. Understaffing leads to triage decisions, but evidence-based decision-making is still the goal.

Under Kendra’s Law in New York, doctors can petition a judge to force mentally ill people into treatment if (1) they have lashed out once within the prior four years or (2) been hospitalized twice in three years for failing to follow their treatment plan. If the petition is granted, the person gets medication and monitoring by specialists. Without this, there can be no medication against a person’s will.

*SCOTUS has taken on a case in which “it will decide whether it is constitutional for municipalities  to prohibit homeless people from camping in public places when they have nowhere else to go.”

*Education — broadly defined as everything from a one-week course on being a restaurant server to enrolling in a four-year college, from learning to run a rudimentary machine to getting updated on the profession that once might have been relevant to the homeless person — should be required if a homeless person is receiving financial assistance.

*Homeless families have the right to keep their children enrolled in their initial school, even when families move. (It’s interesting that this category of families in effect has school choice, while the non-homeless family does not have that right. But that’s for a different essay, about education reform.)

*In the new residence, no guns should be permitted. (There is a broad reform area not discussed in this piece, namely that of guns overall.)

Relevant Programs

The brainchild of a committed individual, Austin has a Community First! Village, consisting of 200 sq.ft. homes. Bathrooms and kitchens are communal. The goal ultimately is to have permanent housing for half of the city’s homeless population. Rent is $385 per month, a low number except not in the context of average incomes of $900/month.

Single-room occupancy (SRO) facilities have a mixed to negative reputation. A modernized version called PadSplit rents rooms for $100 a week; median income is $30,000; average age is 35. Since 28% of households are single-occupant situations, PadSplit makes sense. Whether it has great relevance to homelessness per se is not yet evident.

Nevada Cares Campus is comprised of a large tent and low-priced modular living quarters. The homeless count in Reno has been reduced, but the residences alone would not have moved the needle; help in finding jobs and/or accessing social services is part of the program.

Houston is labeled a homeless success story. Its lack of regulation means a $200,000 one-bedroom house can be built, a fraction of the cost in most major cities. Its approach includes services designed to keep formerly homeless people in their new residences. And apparently, the political powers and the non-profit community are more in synch than is typically the case. The estimated cost of reducing the homeless population is $13,000 for the residence and $7,000 for case management. Landlords receive an incentive fee of $1,600 per unit. The Way Home Houston has 100 of these units.

 

Prior to a few days ago, I would have suggested that if you wanted to have your head hurt about the complexities of immigration, reading the schematic and article, “How to Fix America’s Immigration Crisis,” by Steven Rattner and Maureen White in the “New York Times” of January 14, 2024 was perfect.

Briefly there was a competitor for a migraine: a bipartisan border bill with a doubtful outlook, not because of its intrinsic qualities, but because Trump is urging his Senate followers in Congress not to support it. He hopes to use an unresolved border immigration issue as a big weapon against Biden in the upcoming election campaign, a rematch desired by approximately nobody.

Newsflash: the bill was DOA before it touched the floor of that august institution known as the Senate, where the votes were not there to advance it. Four months of bipartisan negotiation gone, poof!

Negotiation of the border bill brings to mind the saying that there are two things you do not want to witness being made: sausage and laws. How does funding for Ukraine or Israel tie to America’s immigration situation. It doesn’t, only as pawns (more like knights actually) in a political game of chess.

To make myself knowledgeable on this bill (maybe a bit of understanding will be useful in the future, who knows), I stacked up a bunch of newspaper articles and then put them aside in favor of watching a webinar by the American Immigration Council (AIC). In case you had no knowledge of AIC’s advocacy position, their body language, selection of verbiage (hefty dose of “supposedly”) and laughter at various components of the bill provided an accurate clue.

Anyway, here is what I learned (or maybe not; it is a touch confusing, and maybe it’s all moot, pending an election between two individuals who should age out of public life): if an average of 4,000 people walked across the border in a seven-day period, then a Border Engagement Authority would be activated and certain procedural steps would be taken concerning asylum seekers in particular. They might be slotted for a Reasonable Fear Interview or a Credible Fear Interview, each of which affects the asylum officer’s appraisal on whether they have a serious issue back in the home country and each of which affects the odds that said officer will say, “welcome to America,” and instruct them to pick up another form over there or on the phone or somewhere within reach. And the immigrant must be careful all along; a question answered differently on two pieces of paper and a return plane ticket may be the outcome. This is labeled “perpetual risk.”

In the interest of “streamlining” the process under the deceased bill, asylum officers will have a maximum of 90 days to put the asylee in the right category; if they are moved from category A to category B, there is another 90-day limit. Accomplishing this (from any rational bureaucrat’s lips to God’s ears) required a bit of a trade-off: the asylum officer now would have basically judicial power, no more kicking cases up for judicial review. This provision seems likely to rear its head again, unless there is a major increase in the relevant judicial system

An additional facet is that Expedited Removal (sorry for the multiple caps, but they are for real, not for emphasis) gets accelerated, though it is limited to those apprehended within 15 days of their encounter and within 100 miles of the border. (The latter is reminiscence of history, when people in a bunch of colonial offices far from the affected populace decided where to draw boundaries for the latter.) Since the whole idea is to make immigration more difficult, Expedited Removal seems like a future keeper.

To its credit, AIC’s characterization of the unarticulated message of the border bill was on point for the majority of people: there are simply too many people crossing the border.

Poor Biden: as he attempted to cope with the flood of migrants bussed to major cities across the country, he was under fire from even Democratic governors, and when he toughens any rules whatsoever, he is attacked by the progressive left as following a Trump playbook (“I will shut down the border”), and, for them, there can be no worse characterization of course.

 As mentioned, Ukraine and Israel were interested parties regarding the funding outcome of this political nightmare. Something about people dying, that sort of thing. Now they must hope that separate funding bills, i.e., no inclusion of border stuff, will ease the pain of the border bill collapse.

Right now, the border is de facto completely open. Other than eye witness accounts, perhaps the biggest supporting evidence is that a TikToker can develop a travel agent type business advising people how to get through the Darien Gap and eventually walk into the USA. There is an entire ecosystem of businesses providing services and products to those entering this path to a different world.

Relatedly, buying stock in an immigrant smuggling business when President Biden took office would have been highly lucrative, even after giving a required cut to the gangs which have made themselves partners of people seeking a new life in the North.

FYI:

The details pertinent to the above are not incorporated in my thoughts below, which had been previously written and I had to do something with them. An “Updated Compilation on Immigration” was posted last August and over the years I have written much about immigration. Maybe I will again, someday, perhaps revisiting the 2013 legislation which passed the Senate with 68 votes, 14 of which came from Republicans. The latter party, controlling the House of Representatives, then killed this bill. Talk about the gang which can’t shoot straight.

Overview:

The most important initial step is a clearly articulated statement by a bipartisan coalition of economists that the USA must be pro-immigrant if it is to pursue continued economic growth. For most people most of the time, this phrasing resonates with more impact than treating immigration as an issue of humaneness. If immigrants are perceived as stealing jobs or undercutting wage levels (neither of which is supported by historical data), then anti-immigrant sentiment will smother any consideration of the convoluted asylum aspect.

It would be nice to neatly categorize immigrants as being legal or illegal, but what is the applicable label for the millions who are in limbo waiting years in many cases for their cases, especially asylum, to be decided. They go about their lives partly like you and I: working (in whatever arrangement is doable), paying their bills (do you think they want undue attention), taking care of their family (however defined and wherever located), and partly with a perpetual cloud over their heads – are they destined to become Americans or will they be requested to board a plane to return to what is no longer their true home.

Data Points: only a few to paint a picture of the magnitudes involved

*From the “Wall Street Journal” of 11/31/24, citing statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, border encounters in the year ended September, 2023 were 2.5 million, compared with 458,000 in fiscal 2020. The early average in fiscal 2024 is 8,600 per day.

*The following are a few previously published numbers (“New York Times” of 11/28/23) which bring together the different components of immigration: Border patrol arrests from 2/2021 to 9/2023: six million. People waiting on their asylum requests: two million (writer’s note: now it is reportedly three million, compared with 300,000 in 2012). New applications last year: 800,000. Number of immigration judges: 659 (or is it 800: different source). Number of asylum officers: 800. Typical wait time to get an answer regarding asylum: a decade. Five-year cost to eliminate the asylum backlog: $2 billion.  Note that if an asylum decision is not made in five months, the applicant can get a temporary work permit.

*In 2006, funding for U.S. Customs was $8 billion; now it is over $21 billion, all without an effective immigration reform program having been implemented, only a series of ad hoc reactions and rules. It is as if you have some lumber here and there, a toilet seat or two, some lamps, a sink, packages of shingles – all legitimate components, but alas, the house proved incapable of being built.

Some Discussion Comments

(Yes, a book could be written, with enough data to choke a statistician.)

*The Achilles heel of all immigration reform efforts is three-fold: (1) whether in truth the USA only wants certain immigrants when it wants them to do certain jobs; otherwise, it has no use for immigrants,

(2) closely related is the necessity for – symbolically – affluent white homeowners to regard their minority landscaper as a person with the same level of humanity, a person with a family (wherever they may be), with kids with aspirations, with values, with fears – both articulated and buried inside, you know like the homeowner, and (3) since a quality education is tied to economic mobility, the aging wealth holding segment of the American population must commit to educational support. Without it, the American Dream is a mirage.

*It must be acknowledged that no large group of any kind can be 100% devoid of a criminal element, i.e, the situation with immigrants is no different from that which exists throughout the existing population.

*Humane considerations pertinent to immigrants making difficult family decisions cannot hobble the need to have rules that inevitably will evoke cries of unfairness.

*Repeated immigration lawbreakers (a civil violation) must be apprehended and returned to their home country. Without that degree of discipline, any reform program will be close to useless.

*Immigrants cannot be considered as chattel for employers. Enforcement of E-Verify must be rigorous and fines for violations, substantial. Whether this results in a wave of deportations, which is not desired, depends on the timeframe and the applicability of other reform measures.

*There needs to be more emphasis on skills and less on family units; the ideal of course is that the two come as a single package.

*Ten-year green cards should be immediately given to those with DACA designations.

*Those hailing from other countries who major in STEM disciplines and earn Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees at American universities should be given five-year green cards.

*The USA must acknowledge that it cannot be deeply involved in promoting and underwriting structural changes within countries sending large numbers of immigrants to the USA. It cannot resolve economic and political challenges, wealth disparities, and corruption situations. The fact that historical transgressions by the USA contributed mightily to many of these issues simply does not mean that the USA can solve them. Consistent with this observation is that constantly/periodically figuring out quotas for individual countries based on their mix of both natural and man-made problems which cause people to leave is an impossible objective. Maybe there should be a ten-year cap, with a first come, first served sign-up at processing centers located in selected countries. Inevitably there will be the criticism that the numbers are arbitrary; yes, aren’t they all?

*Since immigration is a federal responsibility and the benefits thereof accrue to the country in total, the incremental costs associated with reform cannot be an unfunded mandate of individual states. It is the federal government’s job to secure the border by whatever means necessary. This sounds harsh, but how else can other reform efforts be successful, especially the processing of border crossers who have done it the right way.

*Ten-year sunset clauses should be used liberally in order to properly assess the pros and cons of the multiple components of immigration reform. The Law of Unintended Consequence is relevant.

*There must be a significant increase in the number of judges assigned to asylum cases; processing times must be sharply reduced to cut stress for all concerned.

Speaking of judges, it was a pleasure for your writer to speak at the recent swearing in ceremony of a woman whom I have known for thirty years. How did she get to the USA: she took “the scenic route.”

 

 

 

There is much discussion these days about why people are turned off by college. Perhaps it is cost, debt, and uncertain job prospects. While agreeing with the essential criticism of the business known as higher education, hopefully in this period of deeper analysis of both conventional routes and alternative pathways to a career, the baby – the benefits of a well-earned degree — will not be thrown out with the bath water, the shenanigans with which colleges are engaged.

College bills, for example, are analogous to those received by cable subscribers, a potpourri of different items designed to blur the vision by the time the big number at the bottom appears.

Like the cable company, or the streamers, or the hotel or the airplane, once a business believes they have you as a customer, add-ons of individually small numbers are inevitable. Colleges follow this playbook. Moreover, like their explicitly for-profit counterparts, they use absurdly precise numbers to suggest there is an actual financial justification for a line item. There is not. Pull back the curtain and you will see somebody plugging in a number for the purpose of supporting an overall financial goal, itself typically extracted from the air or a little read strategic plan.

Below is a minor, but indicative, real world example for one semester at a relatively inexpensive public institution.

Excluded is absurdly expensive health insurance, as it can be waived if the student is on their parent’s policy. Note that the student must take action to get this budget item removed as the college uses the negative option approach – you pay unless you act.  Also excluded is room and board. Living somewhere and eating periodically are going to cost money no matter what the related academic situation.

Academic Excellence Fee:        $262.50               Apparently academic excellence is not something which comes with tuition; you have the bill for your meal but must pay extra for the utensils.

Comprehensive Fee:                    $1,484.25           You tell me. Is it for the green grass in the quad, the stone architecture, the banned beer hall. The checkwriter has no idea.

Student Activity Fee:                    $109.00               At least this is clear. If you the student find that classes, homework, and all the drudgery of studying are not conducive to your mental health, you can hit the gym and work up a sweat alongside the tenured professor who is paying zero for the pleasure, and who last week was a no-show for your advisory meeting.

Tuition:                                                $3,535.00           Presumably this covers something akin to educating the student about an array of subjects, many of which will cease to be in their mind once they  graduate and pick up their diploma. Yes, the student pays extra to have a gown and walk.

The expense breakdown at the average college will include more line items and larger numbers.

The above commentary nonetheless remains on point.

 

Like Churchill’s description of democracy, maybe a UBI is a terrible idea, but better than the others.

INTRODUCTION

A few years ago, after reading a book with a catchy title, “Basic Income,” I became intrigued with the ’concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) program. Subsequently I organized a small group discussion that focused on the different impacts possible with a UBI, the sum of which could be a better society.

 

In that conversation, in grading two-dozen different topics as to the relevance of a UBI, we concluded that such a program could be connected to beneficial changes in everything from affordable housing to creative expression to entrepreneurial activity to improved healthcare to educational outcomes to income inequality to economic mobility.

 

Whether the design of current UBI experiments can be scaled sufficiently to move the societal needle overall is a separate issue that is nonetheless completely connected.

 

As always, in Montaigne’s words, is the game worth the candle?

 

DEFINITION

In a UBI program, every adult receives monthly either direct payment of a certain amount of money or a debit card entitling them to that money. There are no strings to its usage. The tax liability varies according to jurisdiction and the legislation behind the UBI.

 

(Note: in the United States, the UBI idea has been modified as a Guaranteed Income (GI) program. This update will use UBI and GI interchangeably as the reasoning process is basically the same.)

 

BACKDROP

There are about 40 million people living below the poverty line, although it is acknowledged that the definition of poverty is subject to analysis, particularly around in-kind and other welfare receipts.

 

More positively, let’s assume a UBI of $1,000 per month for every adult. To the lower end of the income scale, this would be a godsend. Would some of them use the money unwisely? Sure, like everybody. Interestingly, the admittedly small UBI experiments to date indicate that the funds are used in very prosaic ways, groceries and retail leading the way.

 

For middle class families with college age children who are too affluent for programs like FAFSA and too strapped to pay the exorbitant cost of college, the UBI would be welcome for sure. At the very upper end of the income spectrum, the UBI money would be irrelevant. Chump change as it were.

 

At present, roughly half the population has no net worth, i.e., assets minus debts are zero or worse. UBI would not remotely solve that comparison. There are multiple barriers involved, beginning with inadequate K-12 education and continuing through a long list of historical restrictions, many of them based on racist attitudes, on both home ownership and jobs.

 

BENEFITS

A UBI or GI is within a growing trend toward giving cash grants: reportedly seven million people in some 37 countries have been beneficiaries. In less developed countries, a reduced death rate for women and children has been one benefit. Improved school attendance, better nutrition, and enhanced use of health services have been noted. An advocate like the Jain Family Institute believes direct payment results include improved school grades, better high school graduation numbers, and increased income.

 

A study of poor mothers revealed that receiving cash directly has an indirect beneficial impact on brain activity of babies, a similar gain in fact to having a tutor in school.

 

As privatization has moved different government functions away from the public polls, only large companies and organizations have benefitted. A UBI would put more decision-making in the hands of individuals whose financial pictures are so tightly circumscribed that one could argue they have no true choices in their current situations.

 

There is a drug arrest every 25 seconds; half of the population has a family member or friend who is addicted. Hopefully there is an ongoing shift toward treating addiction as a health issue, not as a client list for profit-seeking prisons. The reasons for addiction are multiple; stress is one. The long-term use of antidepressants is associated with an increased risk of having a heart attack. About one in eight of those over twelve years of age took medication in the past month compared with one in twelve twenty years ago. How many ways can you spell stress! Enter a UBI benefit.

 

A UBI could lessen the issue of on-going stress among those with overly tight budgets. Those with discretionary money handle stress with drugs and alcohol, knowing their jobs are more or less assured. At the lower end of the scale, stress is exacerbated because the power relationship between a typical jobholder in a corporation and his or her boss is completely lopsided. A UBI would be helpful here.

 

Income, like education, facilitates choice. If all monies received by a person go for immediate needs like rent, food, and transportation, choice is virtually nonexistent, to the benefit of credit card companies or payday loan operators, both of whom charge extremely high interest rates.

 

Ah yes, some would take UBI money, buy surfboards and head to the beach. The beaches would become crowded and then have to charge for surfing privileges, which would mean the UBI money went for naught. Ridiculous scenario. Some might no longer carry the moniker of starving actor or actress or artist; they would live on the UBI. Okay reader, try living on $1,000 per month. Maybe the money instead would go for acting classes or sessions with successful artists. This is bad?

 

Since the 2021 expanded child credit reportedly lifted three million kids out of poverty, is it not a bit of a proof point for a well-constructed UBI?

 

In 2021, the maximum income tax credit per child was lifted from $2,000 to $3,600, payable in cash regardless of the filers tax situation. Many Republicans are in favor of these types of tax credits; the opposition is insistent on everybody working even though some recipients cannot from a health standpoint. Note there is a continuing, somewhat unspoken premise, i.e. that people do not want to work, when the opposite is continually proven to be the case. This does not contradict the desire by all people for respect regardless of their spot in the job pecking order.

 

Big organizations, whether they be the AMA or NEA or IBEW, are fundamentally about job protection for their members. Overall, in 1950, 10% of employees were in occupations that required licenses; now it is 25%. And reciprocity among states is uneven. While a UBI would not create a level playing field, it would make it more economically feasible for individuals to pay the dues needed to enter certain occupations.

 

What will be the impact of AI? It is possible that those initially in control of its usage will win economically, as always, while job losses will affect those with limited choice. For certain, this is not clear; many white collar jobs may disappear. Low-paid service jobs will remain – these need a UBI.

 

 

 

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Conceptually, a UBI is about figuring out what kind of society we want. That is the overriding question, more substantive and important than the specific monetary details. Yes, a UBI would be hugely expensive, net of cost savings from a reformed and smaller existing welfare system. (So are many other government programs, more than a few of which seem of questionable merit.) Debates will be inevitable on which current entitlements would wither away with a UBI.

 

When the richest five men in the world double their net worth in four years, nobody worries about the inflationary impact of all those incremental billions. At the same time, there is a valid question about the inflation which could be brought about by a UBI, simply because of its universality. One might ask whether that concern should be greater than the protracted role of the Federal Reserve in pumping money into the system in the everlasting chase for a higher quantitative GDP?

 

Theorists on both sides of the political spectrum recognize the value of bolstering families, which includes greater aid, e.g., a UBI. Rebuilding families can be synonymous with rebuilding communities.

 

Amitai Etzioni, recently deceased, advocated a Society built on Community; he labeled himself a “Communitarian.” Because he regarded the family as a moral anchor, he advocated extended child care and parental leave benefits, plus flexible working hours and tougher divorce laws. He was in favor of a national service requirement for young people and wider participation in jury duty and the military. A UBI fits in nicely with this view of how society should function.

 

The economist Herman Daly challenged the idea of GDP growth being the end-all. For one, its calculation ignores associated costs. If the problems caused by carbon-based energy had been confronted when Daly was prescient in his thoughts, our current climate control dilemma would be slightly less daunting. A UBI speaks to quality of life more so than quantity.

 

Milton Friedman, famously quoted as saying that the mission of a company is to make money period, used as part of his reasoning that CEOs are no more competent outside of their company than the average person. He noted that if profits come to be considered immoral, then control defaults to the centralized power of government. A UBI is pro-individual, from the janitor to the CEO. It keeps government at a suitable distance from daily decision-making.

 

**

The year 2023 saw major unionization victories. The number of strikers was reportedly nearly quadruple that of 2022 and almost eight times that of 2021 for the same period. Even healthcare was involved: in October, 75,000 nurses and doctors struck Kaiser Permanente and won not only a 21% wage increase over four years but “improvements in training, professional development and staffing.”

 

Irritation over the discrepancy between rich corporate profits and resistance to paying a living wage has meant that young people without any prior philosophical allegiance to the concept of unions recognized the logic of coordinated action. And relatively new union leaders were more strategic in their approach.

 

The hypothetical size of a UBI in theory could have a dampening effect on the trend toward more unionization. Note that the latter is coming from a very low starting point compared with historical levels when the focus was manufacturing jobs, the majority of which have gone elsewhere.

 

However, both a UBI and unionization are aimed at the same target: unfair differentials in compensation at the vast majority of large organizations. Perhaps they would be complementary pieces of a program.

 

Some countries have either formal or informal restrictions on the ratio of CEO compensation to the lowest income level in the company. The prevailing American attitude seems to be that the CEO’s out-sized compensation was earned entirely through hard work and personal merit; i.e., the people below the CEO office had nothing to do with the CEO’s success.

 

EXPERIMENTS

Going through the details of each experiment would require a separate, lengthy document. There are no two alike and political considerations mean that forward visibility on the programs is not high. Website information is either incomplete or rather dated. It is clear that the organizers of UBI programs are more focused on daily implementation than on winning plaudits from prospective major donors.

 

In 2024, there are three dozen cities in the USA with on-going UBI experiments. Full disclosure: the aggregate money involved is less than Apple brings in every day, but still, it’s a start. Maybe it becomes an initial entry on the road where the signs says, “a viable, evidence-based program that puts a slight dent in gross income inequality is … good.”

 

Pilots are being run using leftover COVID money, $500 or so per person. Conceptually there could be a connection to the temporary child tax credit, which was $250-300 per child per month. An estimated

1.5 million parents (3% of total employment) said they would stop working if that credit was permanent. Looking at the total picture, society could easily be better off with more mothers able to be with their children instead of paying for expensive childcare.

 

The most widely publicized, in part because it was one of the first, UBI experiments was in Stockton, California in 2019. It provided $500 on a debit card on the 15^th of each month; median household income was $46,000. Mayor Tubbs, who began the program, is no longer in that position; instead, he is  Special Advisor to California Governor Newsom for Economic Mobility and Opportunity. Tubbs is the founder of the country’s Mayors for Guaranteed Income.

 

With the federal childcare monies ending, some states are taking up the slack. Colorado is providing $1,200 per year for children under six in households earning less than $35,000. Chicago has recently joined the long list of cities experimenting with a UBI; it encompasses 5,000 participants who will receive $500 a month for one year. Alaska’s Permanent Fund, essentially an oil revenue based UBI, provides money directly to virtually all its residents.

 

The Newark Movement for Economic Equity experiment with guaranteed income included 400 residents, who received $6,000 for each of two years. Residents were below 200% of the poverty line, over 18 and negatively affected by COVID. The vast majority were black single women. Overall average household income was less than $9,000. Two-thirds of the money received was spent at retail and grocery stores.

 

**

The Kenya Giving Directly program had an initial design that entailed having it run from  2017 until 2030. Involving 21,000 people, those from two-twelve years of age were to receive $0.75/day; others would get a lump sum. The organization behind this effort has expanded into multiple countries, including the USA with a GI program. Overall it has raised more than $700 million to reach 1.5 million people.

 

More recently, the current war between Israel and Hamas has brought forth the suggestion of a UBI for Palestinians in Gaza. Raja Khalidi, Director General of the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute stated that $200/month would cost $5 billion to the point of economic recovery, when it would sunset.

 

 

COMMENTARY

Thinking about a UBI brings to mind the persistent question: hypocrisy or fundamental change?

At the micro level, the multibillionaire founder of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, offers tuition reimbursement for staff meeting certain criteria. He simultaneously fights any attempt at unionization. He wants total control of his “beneficence.” A UBI alters the control equation somewhat.

 

If Schultz wanted to help more people instantly, given the apparently addictive nature of his product, he could reduce the price of his coffee. Stunningly, he might actually lose customers as the allure of paying more would be diminished and people would realize a cup of coffee from the place around the corner from Starbucks is just as good. Schultz simply adds a lot of sweeteners, ultimately leading its customers to provide good business for fitness locations.

 

Taylor, Mick, and Madonna could cut their ticket prices, instead of raking in huge revenues and then making charitable donations. Ah, the loss of control again, democracy run amuck if the masses had money in their pockets instead of it being concentrated in a very few.

 

Put differently, fabulously wealthy people pick and choose their policy passions: Bezos re homelessness (while he fights unionization), Arnold: drug prices and education; Bloomberg: smoking, sugar, gun control. Perhaps individuals with UBI supplements would like a bit of purchasing independence, in this case to be used for their policy passions.

 

Newsflash: New York City’s big philanthropists have discovered that their billions cannot solve the city’s multiple problems. Perhaps they might recognize their essentially top-down approach could be beneficially flipped from a power and control standpoint, i.e., a UBI. Nah, who gives up power!

 

**

Society is being torn apart. Leaving aside the multiple reasons, what are some of the choices of the super-wealthy:

Live totally separate lives – already do

Write periodic big checks for issues of their choosing — already do (some rethinking happening)

Resist any changes to the tax code – already do

Ignore societal problems only addressed in part through higher taxes and loophole closings

Maintain a disbelief that the masses will rise up in violent protest

Philosophically hide behind the historical failures of many government programs

Park their excess money somewhere else, e.g., Swiss bank accounts (or places more exotic)

Promote the erstwhile American Dream in the face of its declining applicability

 

The Affordable Care Act was funded with a 20% capital gains tax plus a 3.8% levy on investment income. The top income tax rate of 37% remains far below levels of the past.

 

What would the upper 5% prefer: higher taxes on every form of income, closed loopholes (carried interest, appreciation without taxation on one’s demise), or a UBI?

 

Maybe the right politically could come to view UBI as philosophically aligned with individualism and an alternative to big government getting into their pocketbooks in a direct and painful way.

 

Perhaps an equally intriguing question is whether the left politically would prefer a series of new government programs (always its favorite “fix”) or a UBI?

 

This is a compilation of my monthly Birthday Cards in 2023. Various boxed designs have been deleted and all verbiage has been made flush left for consistency.

Each was originally signed, “Peace, Bob.”

JANUARY:

In an uncertain world where personal control is elusive, staying with well-intentioned

New Year’s Eve resolutions is a challenge.

I do an exercise at year-end called “burning your burdens.” I write down a personal shortcoming

to be eliminated. Then I go outside and burn this paper … and have a glass of champagne.

Spoiler alert: sometimes that burned shortcoming has a way of re-appearing the next year. Whoops!

Societally, there is a long list of shortcomings it would be nice to burn, but I won’t enumerate them here.

Regardless of those who focus on the dust on the piano legs rather than the music,

the USA is still the country people move to, not from.

I know you have accomplished much — stay true to your positive values.

You are an inspiration in my life.

FEBRUARY:

Ah, February: love is in the air –

before, during, and after the BIG DAY itself!

Not only is love a wonderful positive all by itself, but focusing on your relationship with loved ones represents a way to stay sane in today’s troubled world.

Negatives abound: on-going discrimination; an inability to construct a logical, humane immigration policy; dishonesty and/or outright corruption at home and abroad; never-ending mass shootings; an unwillingness to consider the other person’s viewpoint. It’s a depressing list, benefiting only drug companies.

So focus on meaningful love and do not be hesitant to tell the other person involved.

There is magic in the initials ILY!

MARCH:

What happens in March that is worth noting?

(1) We add an hour to the clock, for reasons which escape me; (2) Spring begins and complaints about Winter cease; (3) International Women’s Day is celebrated, and (4) skip to the bottom.

Apropos of nothing in particular, did you know that for the white population, 58 is the most common age; for African Americans and Asians, it is 27; and for Hispanics, it is 11!

Of newborns, the United States is already a nation of multiple minorities.

It is time for everyone, of all political persuasions, to fully recognize the evolving blended look

of this unique country.

The answer to #4: March is famous for it being the month of your birth.

APRIL:

Maria Ressa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for her lifelong fight on behalf of responsible journalism, more specifically, her battles against the dishonesty of the government of the Philippines, her native country and the world’s second-most on-line country.

In her book, “How to Stand up to a Dictator,” she has much to say about the deliberate decision by social media companies to employ their technological wizardry not on the side of defending and communicating facts, but on the side of playing to people’s emotions.

Facebook has the world’s best business model: people give it free information of all kinds. It puts this information through its algorithm grinders and sells it repackaged to eager companies. It knows hate and fabricated posts stimulate traffic to Facebook. Dictators and corrupt individuals take advantage of this, each functioning in their own sphere of power and coercion.

Admittedly, it is not a discovery that negative sells better; conventional network news outlets have known this from the beginning. What is unprecedented is the absence of any serious vetting process for that news item, the speed with which complete lies can gain traction around the world, and the absence of any dynamic tension between journalistic ethics and the business of making money.

Today’s younger generation only knows this Facebook world; historical and contemporary awareness of complexity have been ground into little factoids for ease of consumption while they are smothered by layers of money-making algorithms.

Take time in this month of April Fool’s Day to assess what is real in your life, what is valued, what you love, what makes for a HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

MAY:

Many, many years ago, I compiled a long list of sayings, some borrowed (without attribution) and some created. The sayings were posted not on Instagram (yet to be invented) but on our refrigerator. At our daughters’ high school graduations, the insights were typed up and presented as gifts, not because I am unduly cheap and not because I had delusions of being an influencer, but simply because I thought it was a cool thing to do.

The modest list below follows in that tradition: sayings in no order of importance.

*Ask, analyze, assert, accept.

* Any real change implies the break-up of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety.

*Be quick, but don’t hurry.

*Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

*Dream … plan … build … manage … improve.

*Encourage, enlighten, empower.

*Footprints do not begin in the middle of the snow.

*How can you love somebody yet want to manage the amount of happiness that a person is allowed.

*In a competition, you either win or learn.

*It will be impossible (for the world) to build an ecological future while still maintaining our system of unrestrained material consumption.

*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

*Kisses are a better fate than wisdom.

*More laughter equals fewer heart attacks.

*Own your actions.

*Our grandparents had careers. Our parents had jobs. We complete tasks.

*Recognize a problem, engage in a problem-solving process, stay focused until the problem is resolved.

*Sometimes the wrong train takes you to the right destination.

*Try to not use either “like” (if you are under 30 years of age) or “but” (if you are older) in your conversation; it’s a challenge!

*We can’t exchange these people for other people. We have what we have.

*You did not know that people could dictate life. You were used to accepting what life gave you.

*You know, I never think of Americans as having brothers and sisters. They always seem so alone in the world, so individual, so … self-absorbed.

MAY/UVALDE:

The 24^th marks one year from the day when 19 kids and 2 adults at an elementary school in the small town of Uvalde, Texas had their lives – and those who loved them — destroyed by a gunman. I have been to Uvalde, an hour’s drive from the Mexican border, talking with and supporting mental health professionals attempting to provide solace to shattered families.

Today, in your state, more than two people will die by guns. Tomorrow, another two-plus. The following twenty-four hours, the same. In fact, to be exact and using national averages, in 2022, 2.6 people died by guns every day in every state.

In the specific category of mass shootings of schoolchildren, this country has no peers in the world. It is willing to see kids die rather than face up to the need for gun reform. With all due respect to the Constitution, it is not possible for words put on paper at a certain time in history to anticipate change in an evolving world. In the words of author Geoff Canada, violence has escalated: fist, stick, knife, gun. Only the latter has a high rate of finality to the person on the other end.

Changes under the heading of gun reform are (1) minimum age for a license,

(2) restrictions on the type of gun which can be purchased without a background check, (3) legal limits on where a concealed gun can be carried, and (4) increased urgency among mental health professionals to invoke red flag warnings that indicate a possible shooter.

Arming teachers and instructing kids with active shooter drills will do nothing to alleviate the mental health situation of our young people, nor of their parents and guardians, jumping when a call from the school comes during class hours.

For a thoughtful, pragmatic approach to gun reform, I highly recommend reading “A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths,” by Nicholas Kristof. It appeared on page four of the Sunday Opinion section of the New York Times, January 29, 2023.

JUNE:

Welcome to Summer: trips to the beach for swimming (a little), volleyball (if there is space), sun (lots), reading (maybe — nothing strenuous), food (especially of the junk variety), and legal beverages (within limits of course).

The month of June, in which we should all take Pride, includes Flag Day, probably little noticed by anybody under a certain age; Father’s Day, always less commercialized than Mother’s Day; and Juneteenth, an important commemoration unfortunately not readily identifiable by many people.

Alas, the fun and holidays of June do not contradict the economic necessity of having a job. Bills must be paid and credit card debt is expensive. Hopefully you like your current employment situation. If not, it seems that “we’re hiring” signs are omnipresent.

Whatever you are planning for the month, take time today to have a HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

JULY:

If you grew up in a warm weather climate, July must feel like you have done something right and gone to heaven.

For others, it’s too hot. There is a temptation to move north before all the ice caps have melted.

A full moon takes place on the third of the month. For unknown reasons, when everybody seems to be acting a little crazy, it is common for an observer to suggest that “it must be a full moon tonight.”

The Holiday Heart of the month is July 4, which is still America’s Independence Day unless it has fallen victim to cancel culture.

Whatever you celebrate this month, make sure it includes a HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

AUGUST:

August is named after a Roman noble who has not yet been culturally cancelled.

It is often an insufferably hot month, but then July was not exactly cool.

Contrary to conventional belief, the month has numerous holidays. There is

National Ice Cream Sandwich Day on the second, Book Lovers Day on the ninth, and National Fajita Day on the 18^th.

Only a cynic would believe that customer-seeking businesses are behind the creation and promotion of these holidays.

My favorite, because there is no mercenary motivation, has to be National Just Because Day on the 27^th.

SEPTEMBER:

Students are back to school, which makes some happy.

Celebrating Labor Day, a huge event when manufacturing unions were strong, now is without much participation.

Business activity picks up usually; people return from vacations and spend money in a normal fashion.

There will be at least one Presidential debate (don’t ask!)

Mental health is under pressure. It is more important than ever to have fun

whenever possible – like today, your BIRTHDAY!

OCTOBER:

October is an unusual mixture.

Half of it completes Hispanic Heritage month.

The clocks get changed, time falling an hour.

The weather is a healthy combination

of cool air and warm sun.

Alas, now students must make those

loan repayments which were not required

during the COVID hiatus. Sorry for the reminder.

Will the list of prominent indictees lengthen?

We already have Trump, Menendez, and Biden’s son.

Makes you want to go apple-picking

instead of checking the news.

Meanwhile, regardless of the calendar

or the climate or any semblance of a coordinated

immigration program, people are pouring into the country.

Apropos, I found this quote to be on point:

”To have a parent from another country

is to know how little you can take for granted,

to understand how deeply we have been shaped

by families and cultures,

and to see how easily we could be another person.”

Today is your special day, be yourself.

Have a HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

NOVEMBER: A Time to give Thanks

For the cry of a newborn

Not for babies slain in wars

For the beautiful sunrise

Not for the possible sunset of our planet

For aspirations

Not for the cost of higher education

For basketball

Not for age and injuries

For the ability to vote

Not for the quality of our candidates

For welcoming immigrants

Not for the absence of a comprehensive program

For literature of all types

Not for book banning

For open discourse

Not for ignoring facts

For judicial impartiality

Not for reliance on 200 year-old precedents

For art

Not for high prices at museums

For suburban parks

Not for urban parks being scarce

For beauty

Not for crudeness

For peace

Not for how hard it is to find

DECEMBER

What can I say about December that has not been written elsewhere, in greater quantity and quality.

Maybe I should simply

take a walk down memory lane:

On Christmas Day, my father standing at the base of the staircase and announcing that Santa had not come this year. He was kidding, thank goodness.

In my Wall Street days, writing an extensive report on American Greetings that was labeled the best ever on that particular industry.

Family creating our own Holiday card

and stamping it Howmark instead of Hallmark.

Whatever your special memories are,

you have the opportunity to create new ones.

Pray for peace — for all,

not only for those with whom you agree.

 

 

Traditional: gambling, alcohol, smoking – all aggressively promoted.   With warnings language attached.

Work zones are semi-chaotic. The expenditure sign for government funds is to the penny.

Academic scores at a record low. The ability to click to get information is at an all-time high.

Smoke Shops are popping up everywhere. Urgent Care buildings are on the next corner.

St. Barnabas Orthopedics, a first class hospital. It is a major sponsor of Rutgers football.

Six year-olds with football helmets learning how to hit people hard. More CTE studies being released.

There are more ways to communicate than ever. We have fewer friends.

Real estate advertisements are everywhere. Some tout their ethics.

Is it philosophy which brings people together. No, it is some combination of babies, dogs, and football.

A child sniffles in frame one of the ad. The last frame is that of the insurance company.

People are overloaded with imagery. There are ads in the corner of every televised sporting event.

Almost every tennis player has his country identified. Russians get a blank.

The Pope preaches peace. He cannot recognize a war in front of his eyes.

High fat and sugary food and drink advertisements. In the same show, Ozempic is pitched.

Marijuana is promoted. Vaping is illegal.

Blue cities are business partners of Red, crop-growing areas. Each side vilifies the other’s cultural norms.

Escalating credit card usage and fees. When cash is used in large amounts, suspicion is immediate.

Who can sing which rap song lyrics out loud? Apparently it depends on your ethnicity.

Our headlong emphasis on economic growth. Negative ecological externalities are ignored.

Multi-capability devices that can do everything but slice bread. The directions are anything but simple.

New college graduates have a middle-class mentality. Their initial income is in stark contrast.

Which is to be the role of humanity? Did God give them “dominion over” or “stewardship of?”

Long discussion with a cardiologist. Not a question about diet, where one lived, or how one lived.

CBS News. Exactly the same “news” story on consecutive days, i.e., no lead-in, no interpretation.

A Google phone picture, among others: reality altered with a swipe.

An ad for Insinkerator: food thrown away that would be a meal for a billion people or so.

Urgency to get a Call Alert button: two-week delivery.

Smith & Wesson ad labeling its gun an “Equalizer.” Actually it can blow away dozens at a time.

 

(My comments at Andrea’s swearing-in ceremony)

It’s hard to believe, but I have known Andrea Mazzula for over 30 years.

Since this is a courtroom, I am obligated to provide evidence to support my statement.

I will now pass the evidence around for your examination:

A photo from 1994 that indicates Andrea is skilled at eating. Exhibit A

A photo from 2000 indicating that she did actually go to college and graduate. Exhibit A

Written documentation that Andrea once wrote for a publication called MIDtropolis news. Exhibit B

More documentation that she was organized, a characteristic not common to young people. Exhibit C

Written documentation that at an early age, Andrea wanted to be a lawyer. A great example of foresight and dedication to a long challenging road. Exhibit D

More photos as Andrea took her case to a higher court – I means school – and graduated. Exhibit E

Much later, testimony from Andrea on how she felt about high school and college education. Exhibit F

As you can tell, one of the joys of my life has been to see Andrea move ahead – with education, with her career, with her family.

Along the way, she helped me do a real estate transaction. The result was an Ecuadorian family now slept in their own house instead of on couches at a friend’s place.

Her intelligence, professionalism, attention to detail, her forthrightness – all were on display.

Andrea helped me do a second real estate transaction, this time with a Colombian family. They are now in their first house in this country.

To say that thirty years had no bumps would be misleading. Growth often is stimulated by adversity.

I have documentation that 30 years ago, she had a goal of staying out of trouble. Exhibit G

She also said OJ was innocent. It’s right there in Exhibit H.

She also got mad at me once. I had been falsely accused of drunk driving and handcuffed. I was so traumatized that I neglected to call and wake her up in the middle of the night.

Later, Andrea recommended the book about trauma called “The Body keeps the Score.”

I read it and then gave away a half-dozen copies to professionals who interact with those who have experienced trauma. Depending on your definition, that pretty much includes most of us.

When I was in grade school, there was a quiet kid named Richard Naven who had earned some prize. The teacher asked him to say a few words. He stood up, said “a few words” and sat down.

I have topped him so it’s time to sit down. This is a wonderful occasion and Andrea is a wonderful woman it has been my pleasure to have known. Yes, for over 30 years.

I love you Andrea.