Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy
brought to you by Ron Yezzi
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Minnesota State University, Mankato
© Copyright 2015, 2020 by Ron Yezzi
Return to Ron Yezzi's World Page
Public Thoughts - Occasional thoughts on current issues
Public Submissions - printed in The Free Press, Mankato
Topics are listed alphabetically. Within a topic, the most recent letters come first. In some cases, the date of posting on the website might differ by a day from the printed newspaper. The Free Press creates the captions for submissions.
For submissions before 2013, click here: 1970 - 2012
Topics
2022 - 2023
Abortion (1)
Politics (4)
Politics and Religion (1)
2019 - 2021
COVID-(1)
Politics (12)
Religion (1)
Society (1)
2016 - 2018
Guns (2)
Health Care (3)
Legal Issues (1)
Legislative Compromise (2)
Local Issues (1)
Politics (8)
Social Thought (2)
2013 - 2015
Climate Change (1)
Courage (1)
Government (2)
Guns (3)
Health Care (5)
Legal Issues (1)
Planned Parenthood (1)
Politics (7)
Religious Issues (2)
Taxes (3)
Terrorism (1)
Financial Issues (1)
Government (3)
Health Care (1)
Historical Issues (2)
Politics (8)
Religious Issues (1)
Responsibility (1)
Same-Sex Marriage (2)
Taxes (1)
Economy (1)
Guns (1)
Health Care (2)
National Debt (1)
Politics (6)
Religious Issues (2)
Science (1)
Taxes (1)
Politics
My View: Representative democracy in danger; Ron Yezzi; printed April 30, 2023
Representative democracy is the best, and fairest, form of government because it strives to satisfy the aspirations of all the individuals in it.
Democracy and expectations
But it’s always a work in progress because it legitimizes and raises everyone’s expectations.
Recognizing equal rights of all human beings and their consequent pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are noble, but really formidable, tasks.
Do we have the knowledge, good will, and character to meet democratic expectations?
As our history shows, it’s a long, divisive struggle that has succeeded in the direction of progress in many important ways, but still falls short of what should be done.
And right now, we’re in danger of a collapse.
Nationalization of our democracy
What the Civil War (1861-1865) settled and produced (the 14th and 15th amendments) established clearly the nationalization of our democracy:
Fourteenth amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Fifteenth amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.”
The Republican Party is in the grip of leaders and followers dedicated to attacks on that nationalization of democracy, using techniques of subversive secession.
These techniques include empowering state governments to deny the national guarantee of rights to all citizens, corrupting the educational system, gerrymandering, voter suppression, stacking the courts, supporting autocratically obsessed leaders like Donald Trump and his imitators, and even whitewashing an insurrection.
Forming political judgments
Broadly speaking, here are three basic ways of forming political judgments: immediate experience, experiential systemic thinking and knowledge-based systemic thinking.
And it’s worth noting various outside influences: politicians, government officials, news media, social media, educational institutions and the power of money.
Given a population of 330 million people, those outside influences, and a technologically advanced society, you might expect a democracy to be impossible.
For example, here is one instance of experiential systemic thinking gone awry:
People embracing a USA-first, white, denominationally-bound Christian, male-dominated, gun-minded, ruggedly individualistic, anti-science world view.
Adherents range from those adopting vicious extremism to those grasping for a comfort-zone.
What stands out most is recognition that, at its best (the comfort zone), this represents an understandable, but critically outdated, view of reality.
Mediating factors supporting democracy
• Representative democracy, rather than mass democracy;
• Recognition that government programs and a mixed economy are necessary to meet legitimate democratic expectations;
• Recognition that government regulations are necessary for sound functioning in a technologically advanced society.
• There can be responsible persons and institutions in positions of influence;
• Large numbers of people are capable of accepting social change;
• There can be more knowledge-based systemic thinking.
Knowledge-based systemic thinking
Regarding those three ways of forming political judgments, each has a place of value; but they are not equally adequate.
Functioning well, each higher level absorbs appropriately and goes beyond the lower level.
So knowledge-based systemic thinking, in the contemporary world, is most important because it’s the most encompassing and most carefully methodical in considering all the factors relevant to everything in the system.
The greater the power of humans to affect the Earth, and particularly the life on it, the greater the responsibility to understand what we’re doing and their effects. That’s why the sciences and reasoning are so important. That includes both natural and social sciences.
The relevance of the natural sciences in dealing with issues like technology, ecological studies, pollution, climate change and vaccines is (or should be) obvious. The relevance of the social sciences is just as important but is often treated as ideological personal opinion.
When it comes to issues related to psychological and social well-being — like racism, ever-increasing income inequality, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, health care, gun violence, revised individualism — the social sciences have accumulated major relevant information. They provide deeper understanding about what it takes to have a level playing field of equal opportunity.
Educational institutions, ranging from pre-kindergarten to universities, are a prime source for the growth and application of knowledge-based systemic thinking. But they are not the only source. There are responsible actors and contributors in many other walks of life — news media, government, politics, business, everyday work and social interchange.
Additional Comments on the Free Press Website
I. To better understand the three types of judgment, consider the death of George Floyd. There is the immediate experience of everyone who was there, from George Floyd not being able to breathe to passersby who may not have taken any interest in what was happening. And the continuation of immediate experiences goes on throughout the encounter .
At the other end of the spectrum, there is the trial and verdict which, presumably, present the best knowledge-based, systemic account of what happened. (I use the word “presumably” here because there are aspects of the court system that need to be explained.)
In between, there are immediate experiences, various kinds of experienced judgment and actions, and knowledge-based judgments that occur.
For example, Officer Chauvin, to his detriment, made experienced systemic judgments based on his training and his personal conception of how he should act as a police officer.
17-year old Darnella Frazier had the good sense based on experience to get a video of the events occurring, providing knowledge-based evidence of what happened. And that evidence provided further experiential systemic thinking by her:
Donald Williams, based on his experience with martial arts, and choke holds in particular, spoke up to try to get Chauvin to release the hold on Floyd .
Bystander Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Genevieve Hansen, based on her experience, wanted to help Floyd but was turned away by the officers.
Bystander Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Genevieve Hansen, based on her experience, wanted to help Floyd but was turned away by the officers.
II. “People embracing a USA-first, white, denominationally-bound Christian, male-dominated, gun-minded, ruggedly individualistic, anti-science world-view.”
This world-view is not totally irrational; the problem is its being selfishly shortsighted reasoning. I originally planned to provide a commentary on each of these factors above. But it would take too much time for too few readers. Here’s a sample.
“USA-first”
“Myth #1: America spends too much on foreign aid
Opinion polls consistently report that Americans believe foreign aid is in the range of 25 percent of the federal budget. When asked how much it should be, they say about 10 percent. In fact, at $39.2 billion for fiscal year 2019, foreign assistance is less than 1 percent of the federal budget.”
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/
There are roughly three groups adopting USA-first:
(a) Isolationists;
(b) Persons wanting the U.S. to push other nations around;
(c) Both (a) and (b) above
This is the 21st century, not the 17th. The world is a global interactive whole. Within minutes, you can contact persons almost anywhere in the world by phone, text, or email. Sophisticated technology is shared across the world. There are continuing large scale interactions throughout the world regarding money exchanges, trade, and travel. Economies are interconnected and require shared agreements and interventions. The US should not embrace isolation or treat other countries as opportunities for exploitation.
Given the power of 21st century technology and ecological events that occur in one country having the power to affect other countries, there has to be interaction and fair agreements among countries.
Without alliances, the US will be at the mercy of coalitions that have them—military or otherwise.
Any threat of the US wiping out the whole world with nuclear weapons if we don’t like what they’re doing is both monstrous and foolish—when there are other ways of dealing with disagreements.
The U.S, has a major role to play as leader of the world’s democracies—in setting a good example of democracy; in supporting organizations like the United Nations; and in setting up alliances among democratic nations for protection and social well being.
Generally, the U.S. has been successful in its prominent leadership role. But there have been some serious shortcomings: like the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, supporting military dictatorships as long as they were non-communist, and economic strangling of Cuba to bring down its communist government.
Donald Trump’s foreign policy: Divide the world among crime families with dictatorial leaders who can do anything they want in their own domain as long as they don’t attack the U.S.
This is an attack on everything worthwhile that the U.S. stands for, brings out the worst in us (as usual with Trump), spreads misery around the world, betrays our most treasured values, and only works as long as dictatorial leaders suppress their dictatorial urge to get more power through aggression, a forlorn hope.
Rationally, it turns out that the best way of putting USA-first comes through cooperation and shared goals with other like-minded nations.
Just the opposite of
(a) Isolationists;
(b) Persons wanting the U.S. to push other nations around;
(c) Both (a) and (b) above
Religion and Politics
Your Views: Republicans favor Christian supremacy over Constitution, Ron Yezzi, printed June 14, 2023
Persecuting people who are different is a long-standing human condition fostered by fears based on prejudice and ignorance.
The counter to this condition is recognition of basic human rights combined with realizing that (a) their being different is not harming you and (b) they are as capable of making positive contributions to society as anyone else.
A major hindrance to this social progress is The Religious Dilemma:
Religious beliefs can be a person’s moral compass for good actions. But these beliefs also can cause great harm due to dubious claims being raised to absolute certainty by declaring them to be God’s will (often in differing, claimed sacred texts with different interpretations).
There’s a sad and destructive history associated with religious conviction producing warfare, genocide, atrocities, torture, executions, casting out non-believers, suppression of thought through censorship, attacks on mental well-being, social exclusion, political manipulation as well as legal suppression, and transferring of non-religious prejudices into religious dogmas.
The U.S. Constitution’s solution: The Constitution protects freedom of religion and prevents dangers by separating church and state. You have the right to your religious beliefs in directing your own life and you can join with likeminded others in churches; but you don’t have the right to impose those religious beliefs on other people.
So, religious people can find good works to do but can’t demand a social and political structure that leads too often to that sad and destructive history.
Currently, too many Republicans, entrapped in The Religious Dilemma, reject the solution.
Instead, they reject freedom of religion in favor of a denominational Christian supremacy that denies equal rights for women, protects racism and persecutes the LGBTQ community.
Abortion
My View: The flawed reasoning in Alito's opinion; Ron Yezzi; printed July 3, 2022
Regarding his abortion opinion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito exhibits twisted reasoning.
Right to Privacy and the Constitution:
What does “right to privacy” mean?
Answer: With respect to personally directing your own life, you have the right to choose what you want to do.
What does the U.S. Constitution say?
Justice Alito’s opinion overthrowing Roe v. Wade rejects claims that the Constitution recognizes or guarantees a right to privacy.
His point: The words “right to privacy” never appear in the Constitution and the term never had cogency until Supreme Court Justices invented it in the 1960s.
His twisted reasoning here consists in being hung up on the absence of the words, while ignoring their MEANING.
“Right to privacy” was not in common use when the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment were passed.
But, paying attention to the meaning of explicit words there, they exemplify the right to privacy.
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, …”
Meaning: In personally directing your life with respect to religion and speech, you have the right to choose what you want to do.
Ditto, for the 3rd , 4th, and 5th Amendments.
Ditto, the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Ditto, the 14th Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; . . . .”
Consequently, there are firm grounds, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” for the Constitutional right to privacy.
Supreme Court decisions that legalized interracial marriage, contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage expanded rights. But their justification is not invented from nothing; rather they’re wiser recognitions of the right to privacy.
Reproductive freedom through contraception and abortion is necessary for women to have equal rights with men.
Laws Banning Abortion:
Alito’s twisted reasoning continues: Since laws banning abortion were established law prior to Roe v. Wade, no legal basis for legalizing abortion exists (Stare decisis, in technical terms).
Recognition of a right to privacy long embedded in the Constitution destroys this argument.
And there are times when long-established bad laws must be given up.
Potential Human Life:
Every form of birth control, including celibacy, eliminates potential human life.
And the vast majority of people, most of the time, prefer elimination to fostering that potential.
That’s why you very seldom (if ever) see women going through childbirth 20 to 30 times.
Accordingly, there’s widely general agreement that there are acceptable reasons for avoiding childbirth.
So what is the status of a pregnant woman?
There are two entities: an independent one (herself) able to claim full rights associated with human beings and a dependent one (dependent on the first for subsistence) with a weaker claim in asserting those full rights.
The dependence and weaker claim are not deserved or chosen; but it’s a fact.
Among those full rights is the right to control your own body—which women can assert in choosing an abortion.
Viability:
At the point of natural viability (the third trimester), the fetus is no longer just part of the woman’s body because it is capable of surviving independently. That’s when Roe v. Wade asserts that abortion is no longer legal, unless there’s a serious threat to the mother’s life or health.
Alito’s twisted reasoning finds no usefulness for viability in Roe v. Wade—because he never sees how viability takes us beyond the earlier, correct assertion, “My Body, My Choice.”
A Tragic Day:
The genius of Roe v. Wade: It doesn’t force a woman to have or not have an abortion. It’s a personal choice.
If a pregnant woman prefers sacrificing her own big plans for the sake of a young baby, and believes an immortal soul exists from the moment of conception, Roe v. Wade doesn’t force her to have an abortion.
But it also does not allow her to use those reasons to force childbirth on other women.
Legal abortion is not a war on children. It is recognition that pregnancy can occur at the wrong time.
The great majority of women who have abortions also have, raise, and love children. And those never having children themselves have other ways of showing their interest in the welfare of children.
Comments added on the Free Press website:
In dealing with legal aspects related to abortion, I’ve had to omit relevant social, moral, and personal issues because of space limitations.
Relevant Restatement of 3rd Amendment: With regard to a soldier being quartered in your home during a time of peace, you (the owner) have the right to decide whether or not that happens.
Relevant Restatement of 4th Amendment: With respect to your person, your house, your papers and your effects, you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Relevant Restatement of 5th Amendment: With respect to your person in criminal cases, you have the right not to testify against yourself and to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; [“Due process of law” means “through a fair judicial system.”]
Relevant Restatement of 9th Amendment: In addition to rights specifically stated in the Constitution, you have additional personal rights where you choose what to do.
Relevant Restatement of the 14th Amendment: With respect to privileges and immunities of citizens, no state has the right to take away what a person chooses to do; and, regarding personal choice with respect to life, liberty, and property, no state can interfere with what you want to do without due process of law.
The normal feeling for protecting children should not be used to force forfeiture of the human rights and well-being of pregnant women from the instant of conception. There is a vast difference in the awareness of harm between what a woman experiences and what is experienced in the stages of fetal development. For example, what a woman experiences before, during, and after a rape is quite different and much more complicated than what a fetus is capable of.
“Be fruitful and multiply” is not the standard used with respect to having children in contemporary society. Because of the resources necessary to prepare individuals to function in an advanced, industrialized society and risks of overpopulation, people have smaller families.
Being able to become pregnant is not a guarantee that a woman also has the resources and ability to further the best interests of a child.
Although an unplanned pregnancy under rather irresponsible circumstances can turn a woman into a dedicated, responsible parent, this is a risky assumption to rely on as a standard solution to this type of problem.
We don’t want required childbirth to be used as a threat or punishment for what some people may see as illicit sexual behavior.
Politics
Assessing today’s Republican Party evokes both pity and depression.
Pity, because so many basically well-intentioned, good persons are caught up in outdated perspectives, combined with susceptibility to irresponsible and/or wickedly weird political leadership. Depression, because they may have the power to destroy our democracy, thereby pushing us into irreversible, dangerous decline.
I grant there are worthwhile conservative values; but they pose problems. We need to recognize the sad and dangerous state of today’s Republican Party.
The moderates are gone or irrelevant. Citizens need to vote; and they need to vote Democratic at every level — national, state, local.
Outdated perspectives
Traditional conservative values — individualism, personal responsibility, freedom, the free market, limited government — have a place. But not as they are in today’s Republican Party, where they emerge mainly as a demand for a white, Christian, male-dominated, oligarchical comfort zone.
Personal responsibility: Yes. But it can’t be self-servingly self-defined and negligent about social responsibility.
Freedom: Yes. But it can’t be just non-interference, while ignoring opportunity — the level playing field.
The free market: Yes. But only with fair and needed regulation.
Limited government: Yes. But one that fosters and preserves democracy, while dealing with needs and dangers of an advanced technological society.
Individualism: Yes. But only with attention to natural and social conditions that play a major role in developing that individualism.
Wicked political leadership
White supremacy, conspiracy theories (QAnon, election fraud, antisemitism), science-deniers, hysteric voter suppression and insurrections (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, other militias) have become mainstream positions in today’s GOP and threaten our democracy.
Then there’s Donald Trump. Fostering falsehoods for his own personal power and advantage are as normal to him as eating meals.
In a democracy, he is political poison. He preys upon people’s resentments in ways that get their adulation. Tens of millions of MAGA Republicans embrace him as a truth-talking hero. Even without Trump, you still will have Trump wannabes (like DeSantis and Cruz).
Abortion
Many millions of other Republicans become accomplices — acknowledging Trump’s perfidy but relishing his political success — like anti-abortion extremists euphoric over his stacking the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v. Wade.
A simple fact: Roe v. Wade is the moderate, compromise position on abortion. The ruling did not force childbirth or abortion on anyone; instead, it upheld a woman’s right to make her own choice. The right to control her own body is necessary in establishing equal rights for women.
That’s why it’s so important for voters to seek laws establishing the Roe v. Wade position.
Inflation, the free market
Inflation’s a basic issue in the fall election. Republicans accuse President Joe Biden and the Democrats of causing it.
So, what is the overwhelming cause of inflation in the United States? Answer: The Republicans’ beloved free market.
In a free market, the price of anything presumably is set by supply and demand. It’s not a charity. Committed to making as much money as possible, sellers raise prices (inflation) when demand is high and supply is low, but have to lower prices when demand is low and supply high.
The real world free market is the collective activity of huge numbers of individuals, businesses and other entities.
Let’s be more specific:
With the pandemic, a huge drop in the supply chain occurred — causing less supply and much higher prices (inflation). Supply chain problems still continue.
Post pandemic, many people had money saved and were ready to spend — thereby increasing demand and, thus, higher prices (inflation). Many others have enough money to maintain demand while paying the higher prices (inflation).
Businesses, large and small, want to recoup pandemic losses by raising prices (inflation), counting on increased demand to provide willing buyers. For example, some apartment owners can raise rents by 20-50% (inflation) and still find renters with the money and willingness to pay.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine led to nations boycotting Russian supplied oil and gas, thereby bringing on a lower supply and, accordingly, higher prices (inflation).
In recent news, OPEC is lowering oil production — that is, lowering supply which will lead to increased prices (inflation) on gasoline.
Role of the Federal Reserve: Bringing runaway free market inflation under control.
But Republicans would rather wholly blame the president and Democrats for spending money to overcome climate change and establish more opportunities for the greater majority of Americans.
Conclusion
In today’s world, demand for a white, Christian, male-dominated, oligarchical society is not “the shining city on a hill” that the United States is supposed to be.
We need a much better, second major party.
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Comments Added on the Free Press website:
Irresponsible Political Leadership
I separate The Wickedly Weird from The Irresponsible—that is, Republican Party regulars who undermine our democratic system through underhanded techniques—so that a minority manages to retain power.
Examples: Refusing to eliminate the electoral college, refusing to modify the U.S. Senate representation where each state has two Senators regardless of its population, using the filibuster rule in the Senate to establish minority control of legislation, gerrymandering to eliminate the significance of Democratic voting, voter suppression minimizing opportunities to vote for those likely to vote Democratic, using various techniques to stack the courts with extremely conservative judges, opposing attempts to limit the power of large donors to control elections, creating chaos rather than compromise when Democrats are in power, continually supporting tax cuts for the rich which greatly increase income inequality and establish oligarchical government.
Fox News and the Federalist Society are welcomed accomplices in this anti-democratic endeavor, along with, of course, the Wickedly Weird Political Leadership.
A White, Christian, Male-dominated, Oligarchical Nation
I used “Oligarchical” rather than “Autocratic” here because I think this is the goal that Irresponsible Republican Political Leaders have fought for or enabled over a considerable amount of time. “Autocratic,” though, applies to the newer Wickedly Weird Republican Political Leaders. And that is what the Irresponsible ones may end up with, if the present Republican Party is successful.
From my perspective, each part of this position is flawed and dangerous. I can go over that. But it should be obvious to anyone that this position is outdated in today’s world—unless you see us as the world’s conquerors and embrace a form akin to slavery in the U.S.
The Real World Free Market
The Real World Free Market is the Collective Activity of huge numbers of individuals, businesses, and other entities.
Here are some of the “huge numbers”:
In the U.S., 330 million people, 31.5 million businesses (21,139 with 500 or more employees)
In the world: 7.75 billion people, 333.4 million businesses, 195 nations, and other entities like OPEC.
For space reasons, I didn’t include everything of significance in going over free market actions. For example, there are workers wanting higher wages (inflation) during a period of supply shortage in employment.
My View: Democratic Party working to make things better; Ron Yezzi; printed April 8, 2022
What is the current status of the Democratic Party?
Given what we know, given the ideals of U.S. democracy, and given the need for adaptation to social change, the Democratic Party has been the party of progress since the 1930s.
It’s at the continuing forefront of three great waves of political progress: increasing the well-being of everyday people, the civil rights movement, and the environmental movement.
Well-being of Everyday People
Democrats have been the driving force in establishing and preserving government agencies and laws that serve common needs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, VA health care, FDIC, CDC, FEMA, welfare protections, unemployment compensation, minimum wage laws, workplace safety, job retraining, collective bargaining protections, public education, public transportation, roads, bridges, water treatment, consumer product safety, farm subsidies, rural electrification, rural broadband, reducing income inequality, financial assistance and science-based guidance during the pandemic, saving democracy from insurrection, and more (including goals of lower prescription drug prices, universal health care, expanded child care, paid parental leave, student financial aid, reasonable gun control, and reducing influence of big money in politics).
Civil Rights Movements
The primary leaders of civil rights movements are persons who stand up to demand their equal rights that U.S. democracy promises, but does not provide.
As a political party, Democrats strongly support their efforts—whether it’s fighting racism, gaining equal rights for women, or establishing LGBTQ rights.
Support for: One person-one vote, ending everyday discrimination against people of color, just treatment of immigrants, more just law enforcement, eliminating systemic injustices, affirmative action, respectful treatment in workplaces, equal pay for equal work, Title IX, the right to abortion, same sex marriage—and, equally importantly, fighting reactionary Republican strategies in opposition to them.
Environmental Movements (or Science-Based Social Policy)
Science-based social policy is the foundation of the contemporary environmental movement that began in the 1960s.
As scientific knowledge of massive threats posed by pollution, and climate change increased, the movement has demanded change.
Again, the Democratic Party has continually pushed for solutions. (Democratic Platform 2020: Combating the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice)
The Democrats’ Problem
So why is it that, with all these great accomplishments and goals, Democrats are not sweeping every election?
Problem 1: Loss of Support from Farmers and Laborers
We live in an intersecting world of enormous human opportunities due to our technological prowess.
But these opportunities and prowess come with a price—which we can’t overcome with outmoded notions of oversimplified traditional individualism, minimal government, and neglect.
Life is more complicated; we need more knowledge than ever before; and we need more adaptation to needed social change.
So, what does this mean in practice?
The bonding of many farmers and laborers with the liberally-oriented wing of the Democratic Party (1932 - 1955) has broken down largely because they don’t accept facets of both the civil rights and environmental movements.
Unfortunately, this then leads to job insecurity, feeling left out of national prosperity, loss of their sense of independence, and a devaluing of their way of life—for which they often blame liberal elites.
It’s not necessary; but it happens.
As a result, instead of adjusting to needed social changes, they empower reactionary, outdated Republican schemes undermining all three movements--thereby threatening our standing as a great nation and going against their own best interests.
Problem 2: Republican Obstructionism
Republicans have found they can gain votes by making things worse, namely, by undermining all three progressive movements.
Problem 3: Exaggerations, With Some Grains of Truth
Am I willing to say anything negative about Democrats?
Here are three exaggerations, with some grains of truth:
(a) “It’s always easier to spend other people’s money”;
(b) “Bureaucrats never see a regulation they don’t like”; and
(c) “Letting the desire for perfection become the enemy of the good.”
The key here lies in recognizing grains of truth without being too caught up in exaggerations.
Regarding money, there’s always a problem of striking a proper balance between private needs or wants and public needs.
But clearly, private affluence in the U.S. is not in danger of disappearance because of excessive taxation.
And progressive taxation makes sense, because there are no wholly self-made individuals. Those who benefit most from what society makes possible should pay more in support of the common good.
Regarding regulations, you can’t evaluate them without considering the strength of reasons for proposing them.
And given we’re imperfect persons living in an imperfect world, we can’t attain perfection; but we can make things better.
That’s the mission of the Democratic Party.
My View: State of the Republican Party Troubling, Ron Yezzi, March 3, 2022
What is the current status of the Republican Party?
As a starter, every time Republicans mention “socialism,” remember that it’s a lot like yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater: An attempt to create thought-stopping panic rather than reasoning.
Democracy in a technologically advanced society requires considerable government to meet democratic ideals and to solve technological problems.
But let’s go deeper: The outdated ideology, sacrificing principles for the sake of power, irresponsible attacks on truth, exploitation of resentments, and Donald Trump.
Ideology
At its best, Republican ideology is based upon pre-20th century, traditional individualism:
We make choices, and these choices direct our actions; consequently, we are responsible for both our choices and our actions. And we welcome a social structure, with minimal government, that maximizes freedom to function this way.
What’s wrong here?
It’s a huge oversimplification. We now have an enormous amount of knowledge about factors that affect the individuals we become — related to natural abilities, favorable or unfavorable social conditions, good or bad luck, social change, and the allure of the vast variety of possible interests in contemporary society.
Sacrificing principles
To this outdated ideology, we need to add the Southern strategy by which the GOP betrayed its greatest hero, Abraham Lincoln. It started a continuing practice of sacrificing principle for the sake of power, without ever turning back.
To gain votes, the GOP welcomed the white, Christian supremacy ideology of the former States of the Confederacy: suppression of civil rights for African-Americans, rejection of federal jurisdiction over states on national issues and imposition of fundamentalist-type Christianity.
Based on its outdated ideology, the GOP always opposed Social Security and Medicare, on principle. Because the programs are so highly valued by most Americans though, they’ve turned to underhanded methods to attack them: underfunding, preventing sensible expansion and privatization schemes.
Republicans express noble words about the Constitution and the separation of powers. Then they proceed to undermine them.
Regarding legislative power, Republican controlled state legislatures pass laws that render impotent federal laws protecting civil rights.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate (like GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) have become experts in manipulating the legislative process by abusing the filibuster rule and embracing inconsistency whenever it offers political advantage.
Regarding judicial power, Republicans have smeared respect for judicial authority by using underhanded methods to stack the courts with jurists committed to their right wing ideology.
Regarding executive power: Donald Trump, as one person, is the greatest threat to our democracy in U.S. history. Yet the vast majority of Republicans and nearly all GOP politicians cheer him on or remain silent.
Attacking truth
It’s sometimes said that a well-informed citizenry is the backbone of democracy.
But this claim only makes sense if you have responsible leaders to help them. You cannot expect all citizens to have the interest, time, and ability to become well-informed on their own.
Unfortunately, the GOP has become a hotbed of misinformation: the propaganda of Fox News; Trump’s relentless, extreme disregard for truth, social media — with its fake news, conspiracy theories, science doubters and attention-minded narcissists; attempts to ban teaching unpleasant truths about U.S. history in schools; Republican politicians denying or rejecting scientific knowledge if it establishes a need for government regulation.
Exploiting resentments
Social change, even when it’s necessary or desirable, disrupts the lives of groups of people. Government in a democracy frequently has the tasks of instituting, facilitating, enforcing, and/or compensating for those changes.
The result can be resentment when groups see their way of life threatened — particularly if they feel comfortable with the U.S. as a white, male-dominated, Christian nation with the same stable jobs and a familiar way of life that they want to keep.
Democrats support needed or desirable social change while taking steps to alleviate some sources of resentment, for example, by reducing income inequality.
Republicans feed on the resentments by promising a return to the past, even if it’s outdated or unrealistic.
Trump
Trump is the grand culmination of a half century of increasingly ruthless leadership whereby the Republican Party is more interested in keeping power by corrupting democracy rather than practicing it.
For a narcissist like Trump, power, not truth, defines reality; and he brings out the worst in people.
If he or “Trump wannabes” aren’t stopped, we’ll slip from troubled democracy to autocracy.
Republican anti-Trumpers— like politicians Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney and columnists Bret Stephens or George Will — are admirable.
But they still retain an outdated ideology and don’t renounce the “power over principle” long march of the GOP.
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Comments added on the Free Press website:
To keep within the Free Press usual 750-word limit for a My View, I left out part of what I had to say. So I'm adding the longer versions below. I also wanted to include some comments about the Republican Party's really Bad Actors, like white supremacists and QAnon conspiracy theorists. We should want to think about that.
(1) Substitute this paragraph for "What's going on here?":
It’s a vast oversimplification: Our choices are not as freely chosen as we might think, our actions are limited by conditions we may or may not be taking into account, responsibility is not as simple a concept as it first seems, and freedom is as much a matter of opportunity as it is of non-interference.
(2) Regarding Legislative Power, Republican controlled State legislatures pass laws that render impotent Federal laws protecting civil rights: restrictions making it nearly impossible for a woman to exercise her private right to choose an abortion; sophisticated methods of gerrymandering, voting restrictions designed to interfere with the guarantee of everyone’s right to vote, blocking greater gun control—while Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have become experts in manipulating the legislative process by abusing the filibuster rule and embracing inconsistency whenever it offers a political advantage.
(3) Regarding Judicial Power, Republicans have smeared respect for judicial authority by using underhanded methods to stack the courts with jurists committed to their rightwing ideology. So we have courts set up to guarantee the elimination of abortions, to hinder gun control restrictions, to prevent restrictions that limit the role of money in elections, to block affirmative action, to allow freedom of religion to include the right to impose your religious values on other people, and to allow legislation that denies the right to vote.
(4) Regarding Executive Power: As once President and also the powerful head of one of the two major parties, Donald Trump is the greatest threat to our democracy in U.S. history. Yet he enjoys the support of the vast majority of Republicans and nearly all GOP politicians cheer him on or remain silent. Nearly all Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate refused to hold him accountable for inciting an insurrection to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election. Even now, they refuse to renounce Trump’s continuing insistence that he won the election.
My View: Protesters unleash pandemic on community, Ron Yezzi, printed April, 29, 2020
Donald Trump supporters protesting stay-at-home orders are, in effect, demanding the right to infect themselves and others with COVID-19 even if it causes death, another instance of Trump’s ability to bring out the worst in people.
There’s a “social” disease here related to different interpretations of the principle, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
One’s a reasoned interpretation promoting community solidarity.
Another’s a crude (“people are expendable”) interpretation promoting majority selfishness.
The protestors’ argument: Since the mortality rate is such a small percentage of the population, the overwhelming majority, who are not going to die, should not have to make catastrophic sacrifices for the sake of a small minority.
This argument is the same panicky, simple-minded, easiest way out that it was four months ago — except, now, we should know better.
We now know:
The pandemic affects much more than the mortality rate. It affects people personally related to the sick and dying, essential workers involved in medical and non-medical services, all people living in fear of the virus’ spread, people’s livelihoods, and the drain on the nation’s resources.
These harmful effects would have increased multiple times, if we ignored expert scientific advice about social distancing and stay-at-home orders.
These increased harmful effects will return if we open up the economy too soon.
We need a vaccine.
But right now, we need millions of tests/day and associated contact-tracing so we know the risk situation of our population of 328 million, in opening the economy.
The pandemic is the catastrophe. Sacrifices only become catastrophic if we let it attack community solidarity, which includes dealing with the problem of livelihoods threatened in combatting the pandemic.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Added Comments on the Free Press Website:
1. What constitutes “catastrophic sacrifices”?
for the photo of a Trump supporter protesting against face masks (with a “ban them” image) and with the words,
My Body
My Choice
Trump 2020
2. What constitutes “catastrophic sacrifices”?
Let’s put sacrifices into 3 categories: inconveniences, livelihoods, and existence
Inconveniences (Examples): wearing face masks, maintaining the 6-foot social distancing rule, no public gatherings (sporting events, church services, etc.), not as much desirable social interaction, closing schools with the accompanying need to provide activities and supervision for children, temporary loss of income
Livelihoods: permanent loss of income sources
Existence: Life or death
Livelihoods and Existence, as defined here, can often qualify as catastrophic. But inconveniences are different; they can range from trivial to very serious. And there often are alternatives to alleviate even the more serious ones. For example, in the present pandemic, there’s a lot of effort and money going into alleviating the income problem. Where, in this range, do you put the Trump protestors who would rather see someone die than have to wear a face mask when they’re in close proximity to others in public?
3. Protestors’ argument: If we don’t ban driving when it causes 40,000 deaths a year, we shouldn’t ban persons’ moving around as they please when a pandemic causes 40,000 deaths a year.
Answer: We expect drivers to act responsibly and carefully so that they minimize deaths. The protestors’ demand is the equivalent of saying, “Since driving only causes 40,000 deaths a year, it’s alright to drive carelessly when you feel like it, even though it might kill a few more people.”
4. How are the Trump protestors turning heroes into fools and losers?
Answer: The nation benefits from the heroic efforts of those taking on special burdens and risks in dealing with the pandemic: doctors, nurses, aides, EMTs, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers, grocery workers, food workers, transit workers, truckers, delivery persons, and more. And we have come to appreciate the importance to the nation of workers doing many jobs that previously have not held great prestige and tend to be lower-paying jobs. They are heroes because of the sacrifices they make for the greater good.
From the standpoint of the Trump protestors though, making sacrifices for the greater good does not carry much weight, as they show by their own refusal to make sacrifices themselves. So they turn heroes into foolish do-gooders and into losers forced to work out of desperation.
5. How do you weigh costs and benefits in terms of the principle, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”?
Answer: It’s impossible for a society to satisfy everyone’s needs. That’s why we need to seek “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
For example, we can prevent all fatalities and injuries that occur when vehicles strike trains at crossings. We can build an overpass or underpass at every location where roads intersect with train tracks. But we don’t do it because it would be so tremendously expensive. So we settle for lesser measures: stressing driver responsibility, warning signs, train whistles, crossing arms.
We have to be careful, in making decisions though, that we’re using the reasoned interpretation rather than the crude one of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
In dealing with a pandemic, it’s legitimate to weigh the costs and benefits in terms of the principle, and there could be a point where a crashing economy permanently threatens us with such a low quality of life that it outweighs all other benefits we gain by taking steps to combat COVID-19. But we’re a long way from that point. And a pandemic is a threat that calls for an especially strong effort of community solidarity in following the principle. Don’t panic.
Your Views: GOP power structure rejects important developments, Ron Yezzi, June 10, 2021
It’s often said there’s two sides to every story. But what if one side is 90% correct and the other side is only 10% correct? And what if each side is convinced they represent the 90%?
Indisputable fact: Both sides cannot be right.
So, how did the party of Lincoln’s 45% correctness rating (1945-1965) drop to 10% now?
Among our foremost political developments over the past century:
1. Civil rights movements demanding that the nation live up to the democratic values we espouse; and
2. Expansion of government to guarantee the opportunity to flourish in a technologically advanced, democratic society.
The Republican Party power structure has rejected both, with ever more extreme actions:
1. “Southern strategy” absorbing the Confederate legacy of racism, along with supporting white supremacy;
2. Welcoming opponents of women’s rights, LGBT rights, gun control, lessening Christian dominance, dealing with environmental threats, and lessening income inequality;
3. Worshipping the Reagan dictum that government is the problem, not the solution —leading to 40 years of falling behind in meeting infrastructure needs and of twisted government actions opposing needed social change;
4. Stacking the judiciary so Republican presidents would never again appoint judges like Earl Warren, William Brennan, Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter.
5. Submitting to propaganda masquerading as news (Fox News).
6. Embracing legislative gridlock in Congress to establish minority rule.
7. Corrupting the democratic election system with gerrymandering and voter suppression through Republican controlled state legislatures.
8. Supporting Trumpism, the anti-democratic obliteration of truth for power that is the essence of Donald Trump.
9. Accepting the threatening craziness of The Big Lie, the Jan. 6 insurrection, and conspiracy theories.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Comments added on the Free Press Website:
This letter to the editor presents the tragic story of the Republican Party’s self-destruction due to its inability to escape the curse of pre-20th century thinking (ideology).
1965 is a pivotal year. That year, 30 Republican senators voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 16 Democrats and 2 Republicans, all from southern states, voted against the Act. But then the GOP turned to its “southern strategy” of increasing its political power by wooing southern Democrats to become Republicans, with great success.
So the Party of Abraham Lincoln became a refuge for the Confederate legacy of racism.
The Democratic Party became the champion of the two most important political advances of the past century, civil rights movements and government expansion. But from 1945-1965, there were influential moderate Republicans (like Dwight Eisenhower). So that’s where you get a Democrat correctness ratio of 55% and Republicans, 45%. Republicans were capable of making important contributions to the nation’s well-being.
But after 1965, you get an ever more reactionary swing to the right in the Republican Party, led by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as “heroes.” Instead of progressive thinking, the GOP fell back all the more strongly to its pre-20th century thinking. The result has been a rejection of those two major political advances, a rejection of moderate Republicans, and a steady deterioration reaching the stage of a disaster that threatens to destroy U.S. democracy—along with the 10% correctness rating.
I just laid the story out for readers.
My View: Mainstream Delusions prevent us from solving social problems, Ron Yezzi, printed May 5, 2021
Here are three more distortions of partial truths into Mainstream Delusions (MDs) that strangle our ability to solve social problems.
MD1: Increasing the national debt just forces an added tax burden on future generations, namely, our children and grandchildren.
It’s an especially devious delusion because a pious refusal to increase the national debt is commonly combined with refusal to raise taxes — thereby guaranteeing failure to maintain the physical and human infrastructure needed for the future well-being of those children and grandchildren.
Human infrastructure—like education, public health, child care, the police, research and development—are just as important as physical infrastructure.
Falling behind here just raises the costs of catching up. This has been happening for40 years.
In paying for infrastructure, given the enormity of income inequality in the U.S., it makes sense to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy. Given the level of private affluence, it also makes sense for lesser increases on taxes for others doing quite well, when necessary.
Moreover, innovations and economic growth produced by developing infrastructure makes a better case for taking on debt, especially when interests rates are low, than a willy-nilly free market.
MD2: People of color are blaming American culture for problems of their own making.
Justification: We ended slavery and passed civil rights laws against discrimination; we elected an African-American president. It’s up to them to get their act together.
Response: Four centuries of racism cannot be put aside so easily. Still with us are the consequences of the past along with the persistence in American culture of factors such as notions about white superiority, existence of white privilege, and systemic racism. And who is the “we” here?
It’s systemic racism when a black male can be automatically suspected of something when he drives a vehicle, walks into a store, or walks through a white neighborhood. And it’s white privilege for white males not to be treated the same way.
It shouldn’t take a definitively sensational event like the murder of George Floyd to spur police reform that changes often, long-established attitudes and practices detrimental to people of color.
MD3: We must stand up for traditional values.
Justification: They’re tried and true; we feel comfortable with them; and they serve everyone’s best interests.
Response: Sometimes, they’re never tested for truth but merely represent an existing power structure; or they can become outdated; the comfort we feel can be resistance to the need for change; “everyone’s best interests” can be self-defined to serve one’s own interests; and people can resort to underhanded methods to preserve them when they do not serve us well.
So, there’s the balancing act between maintaining traditional values worth having—like seeking and spreading truths rather than falsehoods—and giving up detrimental traditional values--like Confederates states fighting to preserve slave culture.
Let’s consider how “One person, one vote,” an essential value of our representative democracy, has to overcome the crippling effects of various traditionalist activities designed to stifle it.
Why is it an “essential value”?
Answer: “One person, one vote” is the bedrock of our democracy because elections provide the most fundamental opportunity for every citizen to participate in the process of government equally with every other citizen.
Unfortunately, rather than using government to strengthen implementation of the value, opponents turn to ever more precise use of traditional means of subverting it—including gerrymandering, voter suppression through voting restrictions, abuse of the filibuster rule, stacking the judiciary, and voter disenfranchisement.
Our nation’s system of checks and balances is threatened with distortions that produce legislative gridlock and, worse yet, minority rule.
Current attempts by so many Republican state legislatures to restrict voting without evidence of significant fraud are an attack on “One person, one vote.” They should be working instead on available ways of increasing access—like turning to automatic voter registration.
The electoral college is now as obsolete as the original Constitutional requirement (repealed by the 17th Amendment in 1913) that each state legislature, not the state’s popular vote, elects U.S. Senators.
The Constitution’s requirement that each state has two senators, regardless of population, is also obsolete—considering that the U.S. Senate has exclusive control over confirming major federal appointments, like judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1790, Virginia was the largest state with 14 times the population of the smallest state. Today, California has 69 times Wyoming’s population of 579,000. So, in effect, more than 39 million California voters are disenfranchised when it comes to such fundamental judicial appointments.
“One person, one vote.”
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Comments added to the Free Press website:
Comment: I think it’s worthwhile to provide a reminder of the start of this series of My Views related to Mainstream Delusions:
A mid-19th-century book title, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, aptly captures the craziness of the Trumpian turn in recent politics—from QAnon and white supremacy to the falsities of Trump’s pronouncements and rallies.
The craziness is a clear and present danger.
But I want to focus here on deeper, less recognized distortions of partial truths into Mainstream Delusions (MDs)--that increasingly strangle our ability to solve social problems.
Comment: Note the mention of “partial truths” at the beginning. I don’t deny that there can be a grain of truth present. But it’s the “distortion” that produces the Mainstream Delusions.
Comment: It’s ridiculous to claim that infrastructure only includes physical infrastructure. All government agencies constitute human infrastructure—police departments, the military, firefighters, legislatures, executive branches, the courts, etc.
Comment: What’s the difference between investing in infrastructure and investments occurring in a willy-nilly free market?
Infrastructure is necessary for a well-functioning society, whereas investment occurring in a willy-nilly free market is based on whatever will produce a profit, irrespective of social needs. From the wide-open standpoint of a free market, there are no obligations to provide infrastructure for the well-being of the nation. If, instead, you prefer expenditures to increase private affluence, that’s your choice.
Comment: Racial profiling is a frequent source of systemic racism. What a small percentage of members of a group do leads to treating all members of the group as if they do the same things. So any person of color walking into a store can find herself or himself singled out for special surveillance.
Comment: And who is the “we” here?
White Southerners did not end slavery; they fought to preserve it. They were not part of the “we,” then. Whites from the former Confederacy in control of political power have often caused major discrimination against people of color from the end of the Civil War until now. They have not been part of the “we” who passed those civil rights laws barring discrimination and elected Barack Obama. Many Whites in other parts of the country have not been part of the “we.” There are, however, many Whites who can rightfully claim to be part of the “we.” And the determined and courageous people of color who have struggled to gain their rights through political action in decade after decade certainly belong to the “we.” It also has to be remembered that getting these rights is not an act of charity; it’s a recognition of what the nation’s ideals are supposed to guarantee.
Comment: Given the essential nature of “One person, one vote” as a bedrock value in our representative democracy, government has a primary duty to guarantee that every person eligible to vote has easy access to vote, without corrupting the terms “eligibility” and “easy access.” Anything less is an attack on our democracy.
Unfortunately, we have all these state legislatures going in the opposite direction.
Your View: Blue wave stymied by COVID concerns, Ron Yezzi , printed Nov. 21, 2020
In trying to understand why there was no blue wave in the election, I think there’s an important factor not being talked about.
Democrats — based on scientific expertise and the dangerous effects of COVID-19 —advocated holding down the economy and supplying robust assistance to persons affected by the economic downturn. But a lot of people — desperately and reasonably worried about losing their jobs and/or livelihoods — decided to vote for Republicans from state legislatures to the presidency because the GOP was committed to opening the economy regardless of scientific expertise and COVID-19’s effects.
The Senate Republican strategy of blocking passage of a robust assistance package before the election, since it would have alleviated some of that desperation, worked. The blockage did not reelect Trump; but it probably was enough to elect Republicans in other races.
In a real sense, the election was partially a referendum on the Republican “survival of the fittest” approach vs. the Democratic “better angels of our nature” approach.
And we got a mixed result, provided that Trump is unsuccessful in his “survival of the fittest” attempt to stay in office.
COVID-19 is a temporary situation, since there will be vaccines sooner or later.
Unfortunately for our nation, we’re facing five pandemics, not one: COVID-19, Trumpism, Republican ideology, climate change and social media.
I don’t include racism because it’s been a long-standing problem in our history rather than having the recent character of a pandemic. In technical jargon, it’s endemic rather than being a pandemic.
Personally, although it’s not a perfect comparison, when there was the run on the banks in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” I cheered for George Bailey rather than Potter.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: Honorable Republicans deserting party, Ron Yezzi, printed Oct. 20, 2020
The Republican Party’s 40-year policy-purging of moderates is the main cause of our intense political polarization. The more extremely conservative minority it has become, the greater its demand for extreme positions and anti-democratic tactics.
Donald Trump is both the menace and the proof showing the GOP’s fallen state. You’re in trouble when “draining the swamp” in the time of Trump means driving out the last Republicans capable of moderation and honor. Check lists of prominent, more moderate, longtime Republicans publicly deserting the GOP to support Joe Biden.
From the character and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, to the cruel and bombastic deceits of Donald Trump. It should make a Republican’s blood boil.
But it doesn’t if you’re dedicated to holding political power in support of minority, extreme, right wing views: banning abortion, allowing guns everywhere, opposing all tax increases, eliminating “socialistic” programs like Medicare and Social Security, upholding evangelistic Christianity as the national religion, preserving white dominance, protecting male prerogatives, banning same-sex marriage, establishing cruel immigration policies, ignoring pollution threats, denying climate change, treating health care as a private matter, embracing weird theories, opposing police reform, and avoiding challenges like income inequality and technological change.
Here are some Republican-endorsed, anti-democratic tactics: voter suppression, gerrymandering, court packing, suppressing scientific knowledge, undermining successful government programs, establishing cruel immigration policies, attacking freedom of the press, running roughshod over Constitutional precedents and norms, preventing congressional oversight, corrupting independence of offices like Inspectors General and the Justice Department, spreading false conspiracy theories, attacking mail-in voting, promoting intimidation of voters at polling places, threatening not to leave office.
If Trump’s your hero, you must be desperately pessimistic about the human condition.
Vote Democratic.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Trump's attacks undermine democracy, Ron Yezzi, printed, September 18, 2020
No one wants to be a victim of breakdowns in Law and Order. Everyone has a responsibility to support Law and Order. Law and Order are a basic foundation for justice in democratic societies.
How do Law and Order relate to videos providing previously unavailable evidence strongly supporting long standing claims of significant instances of police failure to honor their oath of public service, especially with respect to people of color?
Answer: The responsibility to support Law and Order requires efforts by government and citizens to rectify the situation.
How do Law and Order relate to Black Lives Matter protests?
Answer: Peaceful demonstrators are responsibly supporting Law and Order by protesting victimization due to breakdowns in Law and Order, in these cases by the police. They’re demanding police reform and an end to systemic racism; that is, they’re demanding justice.
How do Law and Order relate to the minority of racial injustice protesters engaging in violence?
Answer: Law enforcement has a clearly recognized, and supported, mandate to halt the violence and arrest perpetrators, using the minimal legal force necessary.
How does Law and Order relate to the privileged position of power that the police possess?
Answer: By reason of the training and weaponry supplied to them and the protection oath they take, police stand for Law and Order. But that is precisely why they must be held to much higher standards when they abuse or corrupt that power.
What about Trump’s panic-promoting, scare tactics portraying Democrats and people of color as enemies of Law and Order in suburban neighborhoods?
Answer: Disgraceful, incompetent, anti-democratic, incendiary political attacks from the nation’s foremost public official and power holder.
My View: Trump's behavior draws sympathy, Ron Yezzi, printed August 7, 2020
Why does he spew falsehoods about nearly everything?
Why does he hate Barack Obama so?
Why does he admire leaders like Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un?
Why does he treat the news media as enemies?
Why is he tearing down well-established guardrails of democracy—like Congressional oversight, inspectors general, protection of voting rights, and civil discourse?
Why does he attack science on issues like COVID-19, pollution, and climate change?
Why does he thrive on exhibiting cruelty and conferring humiliation?
Why is he always fixated on himself?
Why does he attract large crowds of adoring fans?
Why does he pursue a strategy of dividing us rather than bringing us together?
You can explain all anyone needs to know about him with two principles:
For Donald Trump, power, not truth, defines reality.
And Trump appeals to the worst in people.
When he embraced lies as the way to win and hold power, truth became a pastime for fools.
Whatever warps your judgment—whether it be ignorance, resentment, prejudice, fears, blind ambition, single issue obsession, desire for belittling amusement, resistance to change, apathy—has become a recruiting ground for his narcissistic exploitation.
Barack Obama believes that pursuit of truth is the best guide to dealing with reality; and he appeals to the best in us. That’s why Trump is so dedicated to crushing everything Obama stands for and accomplished.
And why he loves Putin.
Aside from the grievous threat he poses to our democracy and his disgusting personal behavior, I have some sympathy for Trump.
What screwed him up to be what he has become?
I would not place all blame on Trump himself.
My View: Let’s stop debating capitalism vs. socialism, Ron Yezzi, printed March 20, 2020
Given the fact we have a mixed economy deeply dependent on both capitalistic and socialistic practices, making capitalism vs. socialism a political issue is simply foolish.
Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley embraces the foolishness. She demands pure capitalism rather than a “hyphenated capitalism” that she claims is better termed “socialism lite.”
And George Will cheers her on (Free Press, March 8).
Well, nonsense in pretty packaging is still nonsense.
Elsewhere, she says, “We don't allow sweatshop working conditions in America. We've invested in a vast public education system to help our children learn the skills they need. We've created a social safety net to make sure our friends, family, and neighbors don't fall through the cracks when they fall on hard times.”1
But all these actions are socialistic practices instituted to correct and prevent basic inadequacies and harmful effects of free market capitalism. Haley’s so immersed in right wing ideology she can’t see what’s staring her in the face.
None of the following programs constitute free market capitalism: public education, OSHA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, FDA, EPA, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, FDIC, public services like water treatment and Interstate highways, public libraries, public housing, public transportation, national parks, antitrust laws, graduated income tax, minimum wage laws, building codes, air traffic controllers, etc.
They’re just some of the basically socialistic programs and regulations that meet public needs but also leave large amounts of private enterprise. Private enterprise accounts for about 60% of GDP; and significant amounts of government spending end up going to private businesses. Both capitalism and socialism contribute to the nation’s well being.
For a real issue, consider private interests and affluence vs. meeting public needs. For forty years now, in our consumerism driven society, we’ve been falling behind by sacrificing public needs, often, for the sake of private affluence.
For public needs, the price of falling behind equals the ever-increasing costs of trying to catch up. So we keep getting into deeper trouble.
Consider:
Less government funding and thus huge student debt: In 1970, annual tuition and fees in the Minnesota State System cost $379; in 2018, the cost was $8,521, a 2,148.3% increase. Increase at the University of Minnesota, 2,727.6%2
Raising the minimum wage from $7.50/hr to $15/hr, a whopping 100 % increase: There hasn’t been any increase since 2009.
Failure to control health care costs: They doubled from 8.9% of GDP in 1980 to 17.8% in 20193; and 29 million persons are uninsured, with an additional 87 million underinsured.4
The American Association of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Cards: In 2001, the projected cost to improve infrastructure was $1.3 trillion over 5 years; in 2017 the projected cost was $4.59 trillion over 10 years.5
Income inequality: From 1947-1980, the top 10%’s share of total income held steady at about 34%; but from 1981-2017, it rose to 50%.6 In 2016, the upper 10% held 75% of total family wealth, while the bottom 50% held 1%.7
Climate change: Doing little or nothing about climate change just increases future devastation and the cost of dealing with it.
How did we get into this losing situation?
Answer: The major cause is the Republicans’ myth of supply side economics combined with the widespread desire for private affluence--thereby leading to lowering or holding down taxes—which entails an ever-increasing failure to meet public needs.
The great attractiveness of supply side (“voodoo”) economics is its promise of getting something for nothing.
According to the mythical theory, there’s no need for higher taxes to meet public needs; instead, you give everyone tax cuts, which cause so much economic growth that lower tax rates produce more tax revenue than you had before. So, by having more money to spend on your private interests, you provide more tax revenue for public needs.
Voila. Something for nothing.
Economic Reality: As shown by the Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Trump administrations, we don’t get enough economic growth (although we did get The Great Recession), most of the tax benefits overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, people spend themselves into greater debt, the national debt increases enormously, basic public needs are ignored, and Republicans wail that we need both more tax cuts and a reduction in entitlements (public needs like Social Security and Medicare) because of the increasing national debt.
Many people are struggling economically. Yet we’re a nation of extraordinary private affluence; so we still have resources to catch up on public needs. Not catching up eventually strangles opportunities necessary to maintain our representative democracy.
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Notes
1. Go to https://www.hudson.org/research/15753-transcript-a-conversation-with-ambassador-nikki-r-haley Quoted from her opening remarks in the Hudson Institute Interview.
2. Go to https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/dPg.cfm?pageID=812
3. Go to https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/
5. Go to https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/making-the-grade/report-card-history/
6. Go to https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/ Scroll down to Income and Wealth Inequality and click on “Tables and Figures Updated to 2018 in Excel format.”
7. Go to https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/18/pf/wealth-inequality/
My View: GOP takes flat earth view, Ron Yezzi, printed Jan. 17, 2020
How did Republicans become a “flat earth” party?
A “flat earth” position is a commonsense viewpoint that becomes an outmoded holdover in a scientifically oriented world.
This Republican transition came about in three stages: Increasing Ideological Inadequacy, Power Politics and Trumpian Conquest.
Ideologically, Republicans have fundamentally relied on this interpretation of democracy: freedom as non-interference, rugged individualism with personal responsibility, and free market capitalism. Motto: “Advancement of the fittest, with a place for charity.”
This view has strong commonsense appeal: You’re a free person when you don’t have government or others interfering with what you want to do. Your choices direct your life so you are personally responsible for those choices and the actions following from them. You should, and will, succeed or fail in a competitive free market environment. Successful persons deserve the benefits they gain through their abilities and effort, although decency suggests some charity toward others not doing as well.
But the view has become an increasingly untenable oversimplification starting with roughly the middle of the 19th century — when sciences (1) turned to the study of human actions and (2) developed technologies having ever more widespread social consequences. The more educated and the more technologically-advanced we are, the more we need a more up-to-date view of democracy.
The present reinterpretation of democracy: freedom based upon both non-interference and opportunity, reconstructed individualism and responsibility taking relevant biological and social factors into account, an economy working more effectively by combining both capitalistic and socialistic elements, a greater role for federal, state and local governments with respect to both programs and regulations.
Individuals should be well rewarded for their effort, but not to the exclusion of other factors that affect achievements. Motto: Establishing a level playing field of equal opportunity.
What does freedom as opportunity mean? Example: Providing public education enhances our freedom by expanding our opportunities to achieve desired goals and act responsibly.
Note that the reinterpretation does not reject completely the outdated view. Rather, it’s a knowledge-based addition. And some Republicans (moderate ones) have been open to the reinterpretation in the past. Since 1980 however, their party influence has dwindled to nearly nothing.
What, specifically, is the role of science in all this?
Regarding human actions, science tells us about environmental needs and dangers, physiology, medicine, personal development, effects of social and economic conditions, prejudices, social class structures, institutional discrimination, women’s equality, gender differences.
Science provides studies and data to better deal with issues such as education, poverty, crime, violence, civil rights, suicide and mental illness.
With respect to science-based technologies, we need to deal with the large-scale benefits and harms associated with instant communication, quick and abundant transportation, environmental effects, dangerous weapons, population growth, greater affluence, computers, automation, job and location displacements.
More generally, sciences establish what it means for present-day democracy to include prevention of toxic environments, provision of needed infrastructure, guarantees of civil rights and assurance of equal opportunities.
How have Republicans survived (even thrived) with an outdated ideology?
Answer: anti-democratic power politics.
There’s a political base still retaining the ideology. There also are others, with reactionary social views, who became recruits: like white southerners opposed to the civil rights movement, evangelicals committed to imposing their particular Christian beliefs on the nation, supporters of male dominance, white resentment of immigrants of color, rural dissatisfaction with increasing urbanization, opponents of same sex marriage, right-wing propagandists. Altogether, they become a constituency embracing power politics.
Although a minority, Republicans can manipulate the existing political structure: by gerrymandering, voter suppression, taking advantage of outdated election apportionment (like the electoral college and each state having two senators regardless of population), trying to manipulate the census to exclude people who should be counted, opposing campaign financing reform, promoting gridlock politics, increasing the national debt to prevent future government spending, always supporting tax decreases but opposing tax increases, undermining the social safety net through inadequate funding, stacking the courts with conservative judges, trying to block accumulation of scientific data needed for effective governmental action.
Donald Trump’s conquest of the Republican Party is the culmination of the preceding stages: an authoritarian leader, so dishonest and careless about the distinction between truth and falsity, that he brings the party to full “flat earth” mode. Whether you admit it or not, you can’t put your faith in him without adopting the corruption of truth.
The world is what it is. We can’t afford to ignore or misuse what science tells us. And we’re not going to solve our problems by following the “flat earth” pathway of the Republican Party.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Comments added on Free Press website:
1. Why is it that income inequality is a serious problem for Democrats, but not Republicans?
Answer: By Republican ideology, there is no limit to growing income inequality because that is what successful people deserve for their own efforts in a free market system. Even a graduated income tax is unfair by their view; that’s why they so frequently argue for a flat tax. If 1 percent of the population possesses more wealth than 90 percent of the rest of the population combined, that’s just free market justice.
The Democratic view: People should be well rewarded for their effort. But people do not succeed solely through their own effort. They also depend upon circumstances presented to them that they did not create, namely, natural abilities, social conditions, and chance events. In taxing the wealthy more, we are not stealing from them; and there will not be some great confiscation that takes away their wealthy status. Rather, we are expecting them to make some of the same underlying conditions that lead to success available to others. Accordingly, as a society, we function better, and more justly, when we provide the resources needed to provide opportunities for everyone on a level playing field.
So there is a reasoned argument about justice here that goes beyond the threat of social unrest, and even revolt, that can accompany mass dissatisfaction if a majority of the population is not faring well.
2. A fairly common truism, “Life isn’t fair.”
Response: “Life isn’t fair. But we can make it fairer. So, let’s not make excuses.”
3. “each state having two senators regardless of population”
Comment: California with 39,512,000 population has 2 U.S. Senators.
The 22 lowest state populations with a total of 37,100,000 have 44 U.S. Senators.
4. “increasing the national debt to prevent future government spending”
Comment: Republicans support tax cuts as a way of producing so much economic growth that no additional tax revenue will be needed. It’s a politically attractive ‘get something for nothing’ policy. Yet that policy under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and now Trump only ends up vastly increasing the national debt instead. But Republicans are content with increases in the national debt because it becomes an argument for cutting government spending and, in particular, cutting funding for the safety net.
5. “always supporting tax decreases but opposing tax increases”
Comment: Tax cuts are more popular than tax increases—especially when people put the pursuit of private affluence over meeting public needs. So Republicans have a way of attracting votes, even when this approach gets people to act against their own interests.
6. “undermining the social safety net through inadequate funding”
Comment: Republicans constantly lament that programs like Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable and going bankrupt (which is misleading in itself); so these programs need to be cut back (as much as they think they can get away with). But they refuse to do anything to provide more adequate financial support. Why? Because their ideology has led to opposing the programs since their inception. It is only fear of public opinion at the ballot box that protects these programs from drastic cuts, repeal, or a gradual death.
Your View: Trump followers submit to his abuse of power, Ron Yezzi posted and printed Sept. 10, 2019
Donald Trump acts like he’s conducting a massive, real life, obedience-to-authority experiment with respect to lying, corruption, bullying, indecency, cruelty and unbridled presidential power.
The experiment tests how much he can get away with. Many subservient appointees, sophisticated enablers (think Sen. Mitch McConnell), sycophantic quacks (think Rudy Giuliani), rogue commentators (think Sean Hannity), rulebound bureaucrats and millions of his followers are supporting, or submitting to, his abuse of power. And the end result is in doubt.
Considerable respect for authority is necessary for a well-functioning society; but the means to stop abuse of authority are just as necessary. That’s why we have a free press, elections, constitutionally guaranteed protections, checks and balances in government, and a need for whistleblowers.
There’s a mountain of evidence about all this. But I’ll just mention a whistle blowing case and a rulebound bureaucratic response.
Former FBI director James Comey — with direct, conclusive evidence of obstruction of justice — patriotically blew the whistle leading to appointment of a special counsel and, eventually, the Mueller Report — establishing a clear rationale for impeachment and removal from office of Donald Trump.
The recent Inspector General’s Report on Comey completely ignored all that. It determined that he broke no laws; but it severely castigated him for violating FBI rules. Specifically, he kept a copy of some of his memos about Trump in a private safe at home, and he made possible a memo leak to The New York Times.
In other words, from a rulebound bureaucrat’s standpoint, it would be better for oversight officials and the public not to know about Trump’s abusing his authority rather than to break a rule. Trump thrives on that attitude.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Added Comments on the Free Press website:
Comment (1)
The IG Report maintains that FBI rules, which serve the Department’s mission for sound reasons, must be followed; and Comey acted in terms of his personal convictions rather than abide by the rules.
But this is thoroughly misleading. Comey’s professional judgment was much more than a “personal conviction.” He had direct evidence that Trump demanded personal loyalty as a higher commitment than the governmental mission of the FBI; and that Trump was trying to obstruct justice by interfering with the FBI’s investigations. It also was his professional judgment that, unchecked, Trump would not hesitate to abuse his authority with all the powerful means available to the White House. This includes corruption of the whole Department of Justice.
Trump created an extraordinary, dangerous threat to the well-being of the nation that needed to be thwarted publicly, even if that required a breaking of some FBI standard rules of procedure.
Comment (2)
A well-functioning society requires numerous rules and respect for the authority of public officials. But when you have a narcissistic, power-grabber like Trump, you have someone using or breaking rules to serve his own interests—in an attack on the structure of justice for the nation. He deserves no respect for his authority, because he is attacking the basis for respect of authority with his abuse of power. And he will use people’s tendency to follow rules as a tool to further his pursuit of power, if people function simply as rulebound bureaucrats.
Your View: Let impeachment process proceed, Ron Yezzi, posted Jun 7, 2019, printed June 9, 2019
The Mueller Report, to a reasoning person, clearly establishes instances of obstruction of justice that call for impeachment of President Donald Trump and his removal from office.
Many experienced political observers consider this path futile, however, because Republicans in the Senate will never support it.
But consider what this says about Republicans. The party of Abraham Lincoln has become so cowardly, corrupt, and/or incompetent that they will not perform their constitutional duty.
Let the impeachment process proceed with the expectation (hope) that at least 20 -25 Republican senators are capable of being reasoning persons and will come around eventually to support removal.
If this doesn’t happen, we’re in deep trouble: they also can be expected to support actions like Trump’s starting a war as a re-election tactic, or his refusing to step down by claiming the 2020 election was rigged.
We also should not ignore the first half of the Mueller Report firmly concluding that Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign occurred in “a sweeping and systematic fashion.”
It concludes there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy, that is, a coordinated plot involving the Trump campaign.1,2
But the Mueller Report presents ample evidence that Trump clearly welcomed Russian cooperation in defeating Hillary Clinton, and both he and his campaign have continuously shown reckless disregard for illegal Russian interference in the U.S. election.3, 4
I call this collusion. But let’s not get hung up on the word, and instead, just grant that it’s unacceptable behavior.
I think Robert Mueller exhibits courage, integrity, and reasoned thoroughness — just the opposite of Donald Trump.
But is he too honorable for today’s political world?
We’re going to find out.
Added Comments on the Free Press website:
1. Although granting that “collusion” has been a central term in much of the political discussion about Russian interference, the Mueller Report specifically puts the term aside completely, on the grounds that it has no clearly defined standing in Federal law.
So anyone (like Attorney General William Barr) who claims that the Mueller Report established that there was no collusion is deliberately misrepresenting what the Mueller Report states.
Likewise, Barr's claim that the Mueller Report exonerates Donald Trump is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the Report states and what Robert Mueller reiterated in his public statement about the Report.
2. Regarding the Mueller Report conclusion about "insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy":
We should note that insufficient evidence is not always equivalent to no evidence.
I would also point out that Mueller set an especially high standard for a charge of criminal conspiracy.
Here are some significant conspiracy indicators that struck me:
In the cases of George Papadopoulus, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, I think there was a willingness to engage in conspiracy that was cut off by publicity about their Russian connections. In Manafort’s case, his passing on internal polling data to Ukrainian sources with Russian connections strikes me as more than just willingness. In Flynn’s case, conspiracy could be evident with respect to Flynn’s communication during the transition (late December, 2016) with the Russian Ambassador regarding sanctions imposed on Russia because of its interference in our election, by the Obama administration. And the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower organized by Donald Trump, Jr. strikes me as a case of conspiracy, even if it turned out to be a foolish fiasco. Moreover, the claim his father knew nothing ahead of time about the meeting is dependent upon the honesty of father and son, which is highly questionable.
3. "both he and his campaign have continuously shown reckless disregard for illegal Russian interference in the U.S. election."
“His campaign” can be widened to include his transition team and some persons in his administration. For the “ample evidence,” you have to read the Mueller Report.
4. U.S. intelligence agencies—including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency—unanimously agree that Russia engaged in major interference in the 2016 election in support of Donald Trump. The Mueller Report lays out this interference in detail—whether it involved social media attacks, hacking, or contacts with Trump campaign people. Yet Donald Trump, both during the campaign and ever since, has tried to deny and discount this interference—even though he welcomed and used Russian hacking to his advantage during the campaign. He thinks that the truth of the interference would delegitimize his election victory (He’s quite right about that, although it’s difficult to lay out a precise causal chain of proof); so he just denies the interference—trusting Vladimir Putin's word instead of U.S. intelligence agencies. In a Presidential election as close as 2016’s, a number of different factors would be able to turn the election one way or the other. And Russian interference reasonably qualifies as one of those factors.
For myself, I never use the word “President” in front of the name Donald Trump, because I think he delegitimized himself with the continual train of falsehoods he told (and keeps telling), quite apart from the Russian interference issue. The use of that word in the first sentence of my published letter is a Free Press addition. I can see where they have public journalistic standards to maintain. I’m not denying the position Trump holds; but I think he has to take responsibility for his own dishonesty.
Your View: Trademark for Republicans: Falling Behind, Ron Yezzi, posted April 24, 2019,printed April 25, 2019
Which is worse: The Minnesota Republican Party’s half-century of opposition to all gas tax increases or Gary Lindsay’s April 12 letter attacking Medicare?
Answer: They’re equally shortsighted and irresponsible, but the Republican Party’s position continually produces much more harmful consequences.
We need a 20-cent gas tax increase now, because there was only one increase in the past 30 years (2008), a phased-in 8.5 cents that was merely half of what was needed. Since 1988, we have been falling further and further behind in dealing with transportation deterioration and rising costs.
The fault here lies squarely with the Republican Party’s “no tax increase” position. It can be popular; but that doesn’t make it any less shortsighted and any less irresponsible.
All gas tax increases since 1968 were pushed through by the DFL. Of the six rogue Republican representatives in 2008 voting with Democrats to override Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of the gas tax increase bill, only one was reelected as a Republican.
If Republicans complain the gas tax is regressive, let’s ask: Are you willing to replace regressive taxes with adequate progressive income tax increases?
And it seems at least premature to go after environmentally advantageous all electrics and hybrid electrics for big tax increases when about 99% of vehicles on the road are gas or diesel.
The deeper problem: Falling further and further behind has become the trademark of the Republican Party — whether the issue is the gas tax, economic inequality, infrastructure, climate change, health care, Social Security, educational opportunity, social issues (race, gender, women’s equality, family planning, religious freedom, comprehensive immigration reform), or even democratic institutions (with Donald Trump in office).
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Sources:
For the history of MN gas tax increases, go to the Minnesota Tax Handbook, 2018 edition, p. 26. You then have to compare the increases—1975, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1988, 2008—with the party controlling the MN House, Senate, and Governor’s Office. I’ve already mentioned 2008. When Republican Gov. Al Quie allowed DFL sponsored tax increases during the 1981-1982 legislative session over party objections, he terminated his political career. For the other tax increases, the DFL controlled the House, Senate, and Governor’s Office.
COMMENTS ABOUT GARY LINDSAY'S LETTER (posted on the Free Press website)
Comment 1:
For Gary Lindsay, Medicare is all about “horror stories.” But that’s not what most Americans think. A Harvard School of Public Health poll, in 2013, asked, “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Medicare?” 72% (and 88% of seniors) chose very favorable or somewhat favorable. Only 19% chose very or somewhat unfavorable.
Over more than 50 years, not a single person has been turned away from Medicare coverage because of a pre-existing condition. If you want to talk about horror stories, check to see how many have been turned away because of a pre-existing condition by private insurers (commercial carriers)over that time. And it didn’t end until the government forced insurers to accept people with pre-existing conditions through the Affordable Care Act.
For $523./month, I get Medicare, Medigap coverage, Part D prescription drug coverage, and dental care, with no deductibles and no co-pays. That’s not a horror story.
Comment 2:
He doesn't deal with the good points made in Glen Peterson's letter, It's time for "Medicare for All."
Comment 3:
His account of claims problems doesn’t make much sense.
He says, “Every state administers Medicare for their state. Thus it is duplicated 50 times.” This is simply incorrect. Medicare is administered through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), with its 10 regional offices. The Centers give states some assistance for Medicaid; but not for Medicare. When I have a medical procedure done through Medicare, I don’t get any statement from the State of Minnesota. I get a statement from CMS clearly stating how much the provider charged, how much Medicare approved, and how much has to be paid by my Medigap insurer or me. The provider’s charges are heavily discounted by Medicare. If Medicare doesn’t cover the charge, I’m stuck personally for the full amount the provider charged.
If everybody had the problems he had with claims, the administrative costs of Medicare would skyrocket. Yet Medicare’s administrative costs are much lower than private insurers. And one of the criticisms regarding Medicare fraud is that Medicare pays out claims too easily.
I don’t know how he conducted his business and don’t know exactly what caused problems. But I would mention that, if a clearinghouse engaged in aggressive billing practices to get higher reimbursements from Medicare, it could cause problems.
Comment 4:
Regarding the $60 billion in Medicare fraud:
(1) That’s a lot of money and we need to work on eliminating it; but it also only amounts to 8.5% of Medicare spending.
(2) From a GAO report: “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that about $16 billion—nearly 10 percent—of Medicare Advantage (MA) payments in fiscal year 2016 were improper.” So about 25% of that $60 billion is attributable to those fraud free private “commercial carriers” that Lindsay talks about.
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-761T
(3) His claim that commercial carriers have little if any fraud is flimsy. There isn’t much transparency about their operations. How often are they subjected to outside auditing by a government agency (like the GAO for Medicare)? Can there be high profits in health care even without rooting out all the fraud? If reimbursements are as simple and straightforward as Lindsay suggests, how do they prevent health care provider fraud? If they try to hold down costs by refusing to cover various procedures, are they sometimes harming patients.
Comment 5:
Disastrous claims about Canada’s national health care system are at odds with the well-established satisfaction expressed by Canadians about their system. They would like improvements; but they also strongly support it.
And for the VA, you have to make a distinction between access problems and a well-functioning providing of health care.
My View: Trump followers led by resentment, Ron Yezzi, posted March 18, 2019, printed March 17, 2019
Given Donald Trump’s never-ceasing, obvious, and outrageous shortcomings — his daily cascade of falsehoods, his attacks on our democratic institutions, his bullying people with insulting indignities — how can we explain his loyal supporters? How did we come to this— when many of them (probably most) try to avoid these actions in their own personal lives?
It’s a bowl of many ingredients: prejudices, ignorance, resistance to social change, resentments, selfish narrowmindedness, inattention, political gridlock, a desire for simple solutions, excitement with something different, technological personalization of politics through tweeting, propaganda and entertainment masquerading as political discourse, the desire to experience reflected glory; acceptance that the ends justify the means, and the imperfections of life.
Let’s grant that there can be some elements of truth that partially justify all these conditions. The problem is that, taking all relevant factors into account, they have overwhelmingly harmful consequences.
Start with the resentments many people are experiencing (along with the fears that accompany them). (1)
Here’s a lengthy, though incomplete, list: Liberals’ attitude of superiority (2); same sex marriage; legal abortion; attacks or criticisms against male dominance; smoking restrictions; gun control laws; banning the Bible and prayer in public schools; liberal dominance in education; state-ordered buffer zones on private land; climate change; environmental concerns killing jobs; political gridlock; financial insecurity; the feeling of always falling behind; affirmative action; harping about white privilege; benefits for black people; immigrants of color; undocumented persons finding jobs here; taxes that just help other people; disrespect for the national anthem; government regulation of childcare, nursing homes, and building codes; sanitation and fire safety inspections; political correctness; demeaning Christianity along with support for other religions; devaluing rural life; removing Confederate monuments; foreign aid; foreign countries taking advantage of us; tying the hands of law enforcement; “bureaucrats.”
Enter Donald Trump: A narcissistic cult leader dedicated to winning by preying upon people’s weaknesses.
How many of these resentments (and fears) does it take for someone to become a Trump supporter? Answer: Anywhere from one to all of the above. (3)
Add in the other ingredients and Trump has a gold mine to work with.
Superficially, his rallies may seem like a Trumpian version of Saturday Night Live — that is, some exaggerating political satire with lots of entertainment. Yes, Donald likes to exaggerate some and he can be a little nasty; but he’s being humorously entertaining. Chanting “Build the wall,” “Mexico will pay for it,” and “Lock her up” are just funny ways of everybody enjoying the event together.
But there are fundamental differences. TV’s SNL is entertainment rather than a political campaign event; political satire is just a small part of the entertainment. The comedians are not running for, or holding, political office. A chant isn’t funny when Trump shuts the government down for 34 days over it. SNL is not properly described as political propaganda; but Trump rallies are.
Presenting falsehoods and then repeating them again and again are standard fare in propaganda. Likewise for viciously attacking as enemies anyone who gets in the way of the demand for power: political opponents, immigrants, the news media, judges, the justice department, Jim Comey, the Mueller investigation, the intelligence community, the “dark state.”
The constant repetition — “There was no collusion” or “It’s a hoax” or “It’s all a witch hunt” — is a way of manipulating people through distraction. Translation: “Don’t gather and evaluate evidence! Don’t think! Just believe what I say!” Along with obstructing the pursuit of justice, Trump is bullying them in a way that’s an insulting indignity. But they don’t care.
He fires followers up over the national anthem. So, a mild, peaceful, 2-3 minute protest against perceived social injustice, taking a knee, becomes un-American — as if “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” “with liberty and justice for all,” “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are merely words to be reverently recited or quoted, but not put into practice.
Tweeting is an especially effective way of pushing simple propaganda messages, with the added effect that he gives his 55 million recipients the exciting feeling that they have direct contact with the White House.
The notion that “All politicians lie” as a defense of Trump’s transgressions is both foolish and dangerous. It suggests that they are all equally untrustworthy. The notion is foolish because it insults the many persons, past and present, who render worthwhile public service. It’s dangerous because it justifies inattention and ignorance instead of a best effort to be well-informed.
Let’s hope for a peaceful transfer of power.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Footnotes:
(1) We live in a wondrous, advanced, technological society that greatly expands opportunities for people. But, ecologically, these advances have a price in terms of the need for social change and regulations. And many resentments result from a refusal to pay the price.
(2) I start with this, because I expect that what I’m saying here will upset critics — who will see it as a know-it-all liberal wanting to lecture everybody else. My response: If you disagree, try to refute my evidence. That requires more than the equivalence of a nasty tweet.
(3) I’m not claiming that anyone who experiences one or more of these resentments has to become a Trump supporter. I’m saying that the enthusiasm shown for Trump frequently follows from the influence of these resentments.
Comment added on the Free Press website:
Caption for the print version: “Trump followers led by resentment”
Caption for the web version: “Trump followers connect on perceived injustices”
I consider the web version to be a distortion; but not many persons are going to even notice it anyways. On the other hand, it provides a good opportunity to show how this caption makes the mistake of trying to normalize the outrageous political behavior of Donald Trump and his followers.
I referred to “taking a knee” as “a mild, peaceful 2-3 minute protest against perceived social injustice.” Here is an example of Trump’s protesting reaction to what he sees and promotes as a perceived injustice, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!’” the president said at a rally for Republican senator Luther Strange ….”
And the more viciously Trump attacks anyone, the more his rally followers excitedly support him. I don’t think we should call this an acceptable, “normal” way of how Trump and his “followers connect on perceived injustices.” I do think we should consider the way Trump preys upon his followers’ resentments (and accompanying fears)—which I talk about in the My View. And I point out other ways in which Trump goes outside acceptable norms of political behavior, like his propaganda.
Religion
My View: Mainstream delusions cripple problem solving, Ron Yezzi, Feb 25, 2021
A mid-19th-century book titled “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” aptly captures the craziness of the Trumpian turn in recent politics — from QAnon and white supremacy to the falsities of Trump’s pronouncements and rallies.
The craziness is a clear and present danger.
But I want to focus here on deeper, less recognized distortions of partial truths into Mainstream Delusions (MDs) that increasingly strangle our ability to solve social problems.
MD1: Freedom of religion includes the right to impose your religious values on other people.
MD2: Freedom simply means being able to act without interference by others.
MD3: Since we are self-made individuals, personal responsibility, not government, solves social problems.
MD4: The U.S. is a capitalist nation.
MD5: Because of the dangers of majority rule, we need minority rule.
MD6: Our laws increasingly favor people of color while discriminating against white people.
As a start, consider MD1.
For thousands of years, religion has often been both a directive for moral actions and the source of endless controversy resulting in violence and suppression.
Why does religion have this problem of violence and suppression?
My answer: Religious persons frequently raise dubious claims to the status of absolute certainty through faith or faulty reasoning. Once convinced they are acting according to God’s will, reasonable doubts disappear: They are ready to do battle with, or suppress, those who disagree with them.
Freedom of religion makes sense because it respects many persons’ desire to rely on religion for moral direction while eliminating harmful effects of the endless controversy —but only if people confine their religious beliefs to direction of their own personal lives.
If I impose my religious values on other people, I am denying others the right to express their freedom of religion. MD1 is a delusion because it states a contradiction.
Polling reports show that white evangelical Christians constitute roughly 25% of all voters. They are a voting block openly trying to impose their religious values on other people and even think that their doing so is an expression of freedom of religion.
In reality, they’re rejecting freedom of religion. But, in a democracy, the privacy of the right to vote is so fundamental that government cannot be setting up examinations to screen how citizens are going to vote. So we have a situation where protecting freedom of religion is pretty much unenforceable.
We hope for persons’ honesty, good sense, and tolerance—while passing laws that eliminate egregious violations of freedom of religion.
So how does freedom of religion apply to a major, controversial social problem like abortion?
The pro-choice position is consistent with, and respects, freedom of religion — since it recognizes a woman’s right, in personally directing her own life, to choose to have an abortion on religious or secular grounds or to reject one on religious or secular grounds.
In eliminating personal choice by legally banning abortions though, pro-life advocates have problems. If the source of the ban is religious beliefs, then a legal ban violates freedom of religion and creates governmental establishment of religion.
To avoid the charge, pro-life advocates in legal situations usually confine themselves publicly to secular reasons for banning abortion. They argue, for example, that human life begins at conception, not that God creates an immortal soul at conception.
Secular claims by themselves do not violate freedom of religion and must be weighed against secular pro-choice claims. There are pro-life advocates who sincerely base their opposition to legal abortion entirely on secular reasons.
But what if strong religious beliefs are the primary motivation for a legal ban for large numbers of pro-life advocates? Aren’t they corrupting democracy by violating freedom of religion and, in addition, by being deceptive in doing so?
That corruption becomes a springboard for further corruption. Convinced of their religious righteousness, they spread false information, push state legislatures to pass restrictions that make it practically difficult, if not impossible, for women to exercise their legal right to abortion, and join dedicated attempts to stack the courts with judges favorable to their cause.
The pro-choice position does not force abortion on anyone, but provides ample reasons for its legality:
• The sound reasoning in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade;
• A woman’s right to control her own body;
• Ability to end pregnancy being necessary for women to possess equal rights in contemporary society; and
• The important distinction between potentiality and actuality that is ignored in the very general statement, “Human life begins at conception.”
Added Comments:
(1) What do I mean by dubious claims? Consider two statements: (1) All human beings die; and (2) God creates an immortal soul at conception. While (1) is true based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence, comparatively, (2) is a highly speculative, doubtful possibility in terms of evidence. One can accept (2) on the basis of faith. But unlike reason and science, faith has no error-correcting procedure: the response to doubt is a stronger assertion of faith.
(2) Some of Justice Blackmun’s sound reasoning:
To the claim that the fetus is a person and therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution (“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” he pointed out that there was no prior legal precedent for asserting that the word “person” may be applied before birth.
To the claim that life begins at conception, he pointed out that this is a matter of controversy in medicine, theology, and philosophy; and the Supreme Court cannot declare a clear resolution of the controversy.
Moreover, since there’s no doubt that the woman clearly is a person, Blackmun stated, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”
This right of privacy holds until the fetus is capable of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb, the point of viability (during the last trimester of pregnancy) when the State can assert a need to protect potential life. In cases of a threat to her life or health however, her needs take precedence and the opportunity to end the pregnancy still remain.
Society
My View: Government needed for justice, well-being; Ron Yezzi, printed March 26, 2021
Democracy promises, and celebrates, the equal worth of every individual.
Individualism is the focus here with three distortions of partial truths into Mainstream Delusions (MDs)--that increasingly strangle our ability to solve social problems.
MD1: Freedom simply means being able to act without interference by others.
Freedom as non-interference gives you a right to become a neurosurgeon without others preventing you. But that right is delusional without the resources needed to become a neurosurgeon. Freedom is about opportunity as much as non-interference.
That’s why democracy sets the goal of “a level playing field of equal opportunity.” We need institutional action to achieve the goal. No “invisible hand” works here. And saying “Life isn’t fair” is a lame excuse, because we have the power to make Life fairer.
There also are limits to freedom as non-interference.
A major, current delusion about freedom as non-interference is the group invoking it by claiming the right to kill people and spread human misery, with impunity.
Given what we know about how COVID-19 is spread, along with its subsequent deaths and related harmful effects, the group refusing to wear masks and observe social distancing is clearly a significant cause of deaths and human misery—without taking responsibility for it.
MD2: The U.S. is a capitalist nation.
This is a delusion because, as a matter of clear facts, the U.S. has a mixed economy heavily dependent upon both capitalistic and socialistic practices.
In contemporary democracy, laissez faire economics (a.k.a. social structure based on free market capitalism) is as obsolete as the divine right of kings.
First, in asserting everyone’s equal worth, we raise everyone’s expectations in terms of that “level playing field” and a better life.
Those expectations are much more demanding today than at the introduction of laissez faire economics in the 18th century—in terms of needing widespread opportunities for personal well-being and for use of everyone’s talents.
The nation is different: Compare today’s population of 330 million with one of 4 million in 1790, education and technology then and now, a $574,786 John Deere 9620RX (at 620 horsepower) with a horse and plow.
Successful democratic governments must act to meet those expectations; otherwise, they find themselves wallowing in injustices and/or creating resentments that challenge the existence of democracy.
Even if we rightly credit laissez faire economics with various positive contributions to raising and meeting expectations, its simplistic model for society, standing alone, creates ever-increasing problems—with unrealistic assumptions, greed, continual economic shocks, income inequality, and no distinction between the frivolous and the necessary.
Secondly, technology with its rapid change and large-scale effects produces complexities and fragile interconnections requiring government programs and regulations.
You need:
Regulations from building codes to climate change to provide opportunities and eliminate threats;
Massive public infrastructure to support everyday life, meet technological needs, and overcome breakdowns;
A social safety net for equal opportunity and protection against market-driven crashes and displacements.
Corporate responsibility, not economist Milton Friedman’s laissez faire pure pursuit of profit;
And, yes, contributions from a well-regulated free market.
Anyone familiar with the academic world’s regulated free market of ideas knows how worthwhile innovations and protections come from continual testing of proposals, along with experiencing personal accomplishments.
Banning these practices from the socio-economic world makes little sense.
Thirdly, there’s this delusion:
MD3: Since we are self-made individuals, personal responsibility, not government, solves social problems.
If persons do not recognize systemic racism, white privilege, or reparations, it probably results from MD3.
Personal choices make a difference; but other conditions also affect what we are.
Biological and social conditions as well as the limits of our past personal experience are operating here. Recognition of these conditions--along with increasing knowledge in the sciences explaining them--becomes important.
For example, if you are the beneficiary of unjust conditions from the past that you never created, you still may be responsible for making amends.
Acting responsibly is much more demanding than people think.
Persons act responsibly if they (1) make well-informed, good choices and (2) accept praise or blame for consequences of their actions--with respect to both personal and social responsibility. Personal responsibility covers one’s own actions and avoidance of harm to others. Social responsibility covers serving the common good.
Unfortunately, responsibility is often self-defined in a way that ignores (1) and confines (2) to only one’s own actions, while claiming praise for good consequences and making excuses for bad ones.
That’s why we should advocate responsibility, but must rely heavily on a social institution like government for justice and well-being.
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Comments added on the Free Press website:
(a) What do I mean by laissez faire economics making “no distinction between the frivolous and the necessary? Examples: the pursuit of affluence vs. the pursuit of justice, bizarre claims in social media vs. scientific knowledge, unhealthy food vs. healthy food
(b) (Milton Friedman, from Capitalism and Freedom:
“. . . the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits as long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.”
(c) Regarding “socialistic” practices:
Excerpt from a previous My View (March 20, 2020):
None of the following programs constitute free market capitalism: public education, OSHA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, FDA, EPA, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, FDIC, public services like water treatment and Interstate highways, public libraries, public housing, public transportation, national parks, antitrust laws, graduated income tax, minimum wage laws, building codes, air traffic controllers, etc.
They’re just some of the basically socialistic programs and regulations that meet public needs but also leave large amounts of private enterprise. Private enterprise accounts for about 60% of GDP; and significant amounts of government spending end up going to private businesses. Both capitalism and socialism contribute to the nation’s well-being.
(d) For a more extended treatment of “socialistic” practices, go to
https://sites.google.com/view/rymtindsocfreefairmarkets/home
Scroll down to
(10) The Free Market, Making Money, and Meeting Social Needs
And then, scroll further down to
A Modified Free Market
(e) If you think that charity in a free market can replace the need for government actions, go to
https://sites.google.com/view/rymtindsocfreefairmarkets/home
Scroll down to
(10) The Free Market, Making Money, and Meeting Social Needs
And then, scroll further down to
Voluntary Charity, Deserved Respect, and Self-Chosen Social Responsibility
(f) There were some technological improvements in agriculture in the 18th century C.E.—a better designed plow, a first seed drill, and a first thresher.
Your View: Hammers not more dangerous than AR-15s, Ron Yezzi, posted Apr 12, 2018, printed April 13, 2018
Gary Lindsay’s “research” conclusions about AR-15s (Free Press, April 2) strike me as weird.
His conclusions:
Rapid-fire rifles with high-capacity magazines like AR-15s are not assault rifles because they’re less powerful and deadly than a common deer hunting rifle.
So, mass killers are naïve in foolishly thinking they have real assault rifles.
Mass killings with AR-15s are a negligible concern because they’re just a tiny percentage of gun-related deaths.
Mass killers can easily get other guns that work just as well.
Finally, he adds, with disdain: Since hammers cause more deaths than assault weapons, we should ban hammers first before AR-15s.
Question: Are AR-15s more like live grenades, which are legally banned, or like hammers, which are not? Live grenades are extremely dangerous weapons specifically designed to kill or maim and serve no needed purpose in civil society; hammers are among the most valuable hand tools ever invented, with numerous highly constructive uses in civil society.
That’s why hammers are legal, even if they may sometimes cause deaths, and grenades are illegal. It should be clear that AR-15s are like live grenades.
Let’s also reject these selfish delusions: Hunting, target shooting, and gun collection become worthless, impossible activities without AR-15s; and we are defenseless without AR-15s.
Or, that the Second Amendment is meant to guarantee the right to overthrow the government and thereby protects AR-15s. Let me quote from Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”
We should ban assault weapons like AR-15s; but we also need other gun control measures.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Comments added on the Free Press website:
Comment 1 –
Why worry about mass killings with assault weapons when they are such a small percentage of gun related deaths? Answer: All these deaths are unnecessary, because, like live grenades, these weapons should be banned. See what I say about live grenades, hammers, AR-15s, and selfish delusions. Rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity magazines are particularly terrifying because they can kill or maim lots of people in any ordinary place (like schools) at any time.
Comment 2 -
Claim: The assault weapons ban (1994 – 2004) didn’t make any difference. The best judgment we can make about this claim is that it is unreliable. For example, the ban only applied to sales, not previously owned assault weapons; so there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons still around for mass shootings. Since the ban ended, there is data showing increases in the frequency and scale of the violence. But it’s not worth my time to work out a refutation of the claim in any detail.
Comment 3 -
Instead of making irrelevant distinctions, like the one between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, to define what is or is not an “assault weapon,” you need to concentrate on the effects of rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity magazines in terms of the mayhem they cause. AR-15s continually show how they can, and do, produce mass killings, even though they are semi-automatic weapons. That’s why mass killers prefer them.
Comment 4 -
The “hammer argument” is equally ridiculous if you substitute “cars” for “hammers.”
Comment 5 -
For more information on gun related issues, go to http://sites.google.com/site/rythinkingtoursmt10/inabroaderview6[YRD1]
and scroll down to the Guns issue under 2016 – 2018
My View: Gun logic doesn't add up in low-risk world, by Ron Yezzi, Posted: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:00 am
What should we say about Jihadist terrorism, gun violence and grenade violence?
Here are four points everybody should agree on:
1. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding persons who do not support or engage in gun violence involving human beings; likewise, the vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding persons who do not support or engage in Jihadist terrorism.
So, just as we should not demonize, discriminate against, or alienate all gun owners for actions of a small percentage, we should not demonize, discriminate against, or alienate all Muslims for actions of a small percentage.
2. More incidents of Jihadist terrorism are likely to occur; but it is extremely unlikely that you yourself will be a victim of that terrorism. You face many more risks of death or injury in other ways every day.
For example, there were 33,561 fatalities and 2.36 million injuries in vehicle crashes during 2012; and 335,609 people died from guns between 2000 and 2010. So, you should not surrender to panic, hysteria, or excessive fear about Jihadist terrorism.
3. Government officials, consistent with civil rights and American values, have the responsibility to take reasonable measures to minimize gun violence and Jihadist terrorism — although we cannot expect perfect success. As individuals, we should be vigilant, but not paranoid.
4. The ISIS caliphate is not a major world power presently. Its strategy to become a major world power rests entirely on its attempt to promote hatred and war between Muslims and the West by committing atrocities leading Western nations to overreact — in ways that recruit more and more of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims to support the ISIS cause. So the simplest suggestions for attacking ISIS may also be ways of advancing the ISIS strategy.
Now for more controversial issues:
Gun violence is a serious problem in the U.S. Every year, on average, more than 100,000 people are shot. In 2010, 82 children under age 5 were killed by firearms, more than the 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty. But grenade violence is not any problem at all. Why is that?
Answer: Possessing live grenades is illegal. But suppose grenades were as available as guns. So the number of grenades would match or surpass the 300 million guns in private hands in the U.S. Does any sane person really believe that this would not create a serious grenade problem?
Yet the case for allowing grenades fits into all the usual, popular arguments opposing gun control: Grenades don’t kill people; people kill people.
If we outlaw grenades, then only criminals will have grenades.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a grenade is a good guy with a grenade.
I have a constitutional right to have grenades for my self-protection.
I have a constitutional right to have grenades to protect myself from governmental tyranny.
Instead of grenade control, we need training programs on how to use grenades responsibly.
If, despite such arguments, we can legally ban live grenades altogether, we can put greater restrictions on the availability of guns.
Should all guns be banned? Aside from the impracticality of confiscating all guns already around, guns do serve useful purposes. Motor vehicle violence — through deaths, injuries, and pollution — is a much greater problem than even gun violence. But no one would suggest banning all motor vehicles. Why? Motor vehicles are extremely useful for transportation and recreational purposes in American society.
Guns have nowhere near the same usefulness. But there are some especially risky circumstances where guns for self-protection are useful, and guns also can serve some widely accepted recreational purposes, like hunting or targeting.
With respect to gun usefulness, we need to avoid what is often a “self-protection myth:” “I need a gun to protect myself and my family.” While the claim can hold for some risky situations, it becomes a myth for cases where the risks are especially low. And most gun owners themselves are the ones who show that the claim is very often a myth. Here’s why.
If you want to protect yourself from every possible risk of violence to you or your family, you need the equivalent of a suitably armed, ready to fire sentry, 24/7, for both you and every other family member. But very few gun owners meet that standard. And the ones who do usually are exhibiting excessive fear in reaction to extremely low risks.
Additional information by Yezzi on this article can be found at www.mankatofreepress.com.
Here are additional details on the Free Press website that could not be included in the My View.
There are four sections: (1) the self-protection myth, (2) constitutional issues, (3) gun restriction measures, and (4) an admonition to gun owners and Muslims.
(1) The Self-Protection Myth:
Sentry Readiness Questions: Are you always instantly ready with sufficient firepower to use against road rage persons, an armed intruder, multiple attackers, drive-by shooters, berserk neighbors or strangers, suicide bombers, ideological fanatics, accidental firing of guns, snipers? Do you always have your gun in a place where it is available for instant use? Do you always stay home if there is no other ready and able gun user there to protect your family? Do you always carry a gun with you wherever you go? Do you stop a family member from going anywhere unaccompanied by a ready and able gun user? Do you prevent family members from driving or riding in a vehicle, if there is no adequately armed person there? Do you always stand guard with a gun when your children are playing in the driveway? Do you always forbid your children to go to a friend’s house or anywhere else, unless you have explicit assurances they are continually under immediate, protective gun guard? Do you keep your children away from schools, movies, malls, sporting events, practices, dances, stores, etc. if there is no ready and able armed guard accompanying them?
I assume that there will be a lot of “no” answers, because, factually, there is not that much of a threat to warrant all these precautions.
It might be better to see the situation this way: You don’t need a gun like you need food and shelter; but you buy it as insurance against a highly unlikely, but possible, event whereby you or your family might otherwise become the helpless victim(s) of gun violence. Because of the requirements of sentry readiness though, you do not have full coverage. Besides, it’s like trying to stop a small number of arsonists from starting fires by storing more and more fuel to burn the arsonists—only to find that more fuel provides more opportunities, more accidents, and more carelessness that lead to starting more fires.
I don’t like the thought of being a helpless victim myself; and I sympathize with anyone else who feels the same way. But we can’t let the thought overwhelm us. We have to weigh all the risks carefully.
Whether persons buy them, borrow them, receive them as gifts, talk others into providing them, take them from home storage places, or steal them—it’s not very hard to get a gun when there are 300 million around and more on the way. And the statistics on gun violence show the results. For a country that aspires to be the greatest nation on earth, the amount of gun violence is a national disgrace. Compared with too many other nations, our prevention of gun violence is especially ineffective.
(2) Constitutional Issues:
The District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right for individuals to own guns for self-protection did not strike down gun control. It struck down a law banning all handguns. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The opinion also specifically supported prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Universal background checks, banning assault style weapons (both automatic and semi-automatic), banning grenades, banning large magazines, and banning guns from public places are not violations of the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, these are not the only restrictions that can be legal.
There is no legally recognized constitutional right to own guns for protection against a tyrannical government. It just doesn’t exist. President Abraham Lincoln’s point rejecting any constitutionality of secession in his First Inaugural Address is equally applicable here, “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” Historically, various persons or groups may have interpreted the 2nd Amendment that way. But it has no legal standing. Someone may revolt to overthrow the government; but it’s not a constitutional right.
On a deeper level, the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was a bad one. The 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Justice Scalia’s interpretation, which separated the right to personal ownership of arms for self-protection from military service, is a misrepresentation of the original intent of the nation’s founders. Scalia cites evidence that many persons then believed in the right to personal ownership of guns for self-protection and some states had even included that right explicitly in their own laws. But, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the founders rejected these views and those state laws by stating the 2nd Amendment as they did. The founders were interested in guaranteeing a military defense against invasion and insurrection, without having a standing national army. The most you can say against Stevens’ dissent is that the strong wording of the Amendment’s second clause creates some ambiguity.
While, personally, I think the original intent of a law is a relevant consideration, I favor having a “living constitution” where present day circumstances also have to be taken into account. By this measure, the 2nd Amendment became pretty much irrelevant once the U.S. had a standing army. And that would be especially true today.
We would be better off if the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority had ruled differently. There can be respect for gun ownership without declaring it a personal, constitutional right. Given the law as it is though, we should recognize that the law allows for a considerable amount of gun control, and surely much more than what we have now.
(3) Gun Restriction Measures:
Extreme opponents nearly always treat new gun control measures as a “slippery slope” to prohibition of all guns. I’ve already pointed out why total prohibition is not a goal. And I’ve pointed out that even the District of Columbia v. Heller decision does not prohibit further gun control measures. Better enforcing of existing gun control laws, making universal background checks really universal, banning all assault style weapons (semi-automatics as well as the already banned automatic ones), banning large magazines are good first steps. New technology, like smart gun locks, can help. But probably further steps will be necessary to reduce the availability of guns. The 300 million+ guns are too many. Gun buybacks can help. But there may have to be limits set for the number of guns being manufactured, imported, or sold. There may have to be limits set for the number of guns persons can own. This is something to work on over time, rather than have sudden drastic changes. What can we say to gun owners who balk at such limitations? I think the goal should be to preserve the benefits derived from recreational activities associated with guns—like hunting, targeting, and collecting—and to allow guns sufficient for self-protection in risky situations. But we also need to reduce gun violence. Working all this out in detail will not be easy. I’m aware that my suggestions are not likely to satisfy gun owners who are insistent on deciding for themselves what guns they should have or not have, without government interference—regardless how much gun violence results. That brings me to a final admonition.
(4) An admonition to moderate Muslims and gun owners:
Just as we expect moderate Muslims to speak out against extremist interpretations of Islam, we should expect moderate gun owners to speak out against extremist ideologies about guns.
Sources:
For traffic fatalities and injuries in 2012, go to: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf
For figures on gun violence, go to “Just the facts: gun violence in America”: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite
For the no. of guns in circulation in the U.S. go the Washington Post Article, “There are now more guns than people in the United States”:
For the column that I respond to below, go to https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/medicare-all-grim-prognosis
My View: Medicare for All plan distorted by columnist, Ron Yezzi , Nov. 30, 2018
· Robert Moffit’s op-ed (‘Medicare for All’? A grim prognosis), Free Press (Nov. 23), merits a Ludicrous Distortion Award for spreading fear and confusion.
Here are six Ludicrous Distortions (LDs):
LD1. Medicare for All eliminates Medicare.
LD2. Medicare for All eliminates health care coverage for 58 million seniors and disabled Americans as well as 73 million others because of the disappearance of Medicare, Medicare Advantage, supplemental insurance programs, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance programs.
LD3. Medicare for All is “total government control of American health care” just like VA health care and Britain’s National Health Service.
LD4. VA Health care has “a shocking record of poor quality of care for America’s veterans.”
LD5. Britain’s National Health Service is a catalog of failures.
LD6. Medicare for All is too expensive for the U.S.
Setting the record straight:
Contra LD1:
Medicare has worked successfully for 50 years, has overwhelming public support, and it’s a single payer program. Medicare saves money by lowering administrative costs, eliminating profit margins and controlling reimbursements more carefully.
Medicare for All, (1) as it says, follows the Medicare model but expands it to cover everyone, not just persons 65 or older and the disabled. It also includes additional benefits: full coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, prescription drug coverage, and coverage for vision, hearing and dental care.
Like Medicare, Medicare for All allows persons to seek health care services from any qualified doctors, hospitals, clinics or agencies.
Contra LD2:
Since Medicare for All covers everyone and has those additional benefits, there is, of course, no need for Medicare Advantage, supplemental insurance programs, the Children’s Health Insurance programs, and Medicaid’s medical services. Medicaid’s provision for long term care will remain. Moffit’s presented vision of millions and millions of people losing their health care is a mirage.
Contra LD3:
Like Medicare, Medicare for All will not include government ownership of hospitals and clinics or government hiring of health care providers like doctors and nurses who staff these institutions. So Moffit’s claim about total government control is foolish, whether applied to Medicare or Medicare for All. And hence, all his criticizing references to VA health care and Britain’s National Health Service, which include both government ownership and hiring, are irrelevant to Medicare and Medicare for All.
Contra LD4:
Moffit’s attack on VA health care is a disservice to the multitude of veterans who get quality health care through the VA. The VA’s shameful waiting list scandals are not the whole story, especially when it comes to the quality of care itself. The Rand Corporation reviewed 69 studies of VA health care and concluded that the quality of care in VA health care system compares well with non-VA facilities. (2)
Contra LD5:
Moffit’s dire description of the disastrous state of Britain’s National Health Service does not square with the Brits’ assessment. A 70th anniversary article, “Is the NHS the world’s best health care system?”, in The Guardian newspaper, begins, “Nothing inspires national pride quite like the National Health Service.” The title refers to a U.S. based Commonwealth Fund Report that rated their health care system the best among 11 well-off nations. (3)
Contra LD6:
Regarding costs, what Moffit doesn’t tell you is that the scary $32 trillion increase in health care costs is coming even without Medicare for All. Health-care costs in 2017 were $3.5 trillion in the U.S. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects (without Medicare for All) an average 5.5 percent annual increase in health-care costs through 2026. (4)
And there’s no reason to think that percentage will decline in further years. In 2031, the annual cost will be more than $7 trillion.
I have reasons for thinking that Medicare for All will not require that much of an increase. For example, other relatively well-off nations with universal health care have better results while spending a lot less money than we do. I don’t see why the U.S. can’t come close to matching them.
At any rate, a single payer Medicare for All offers more for the money with universal coverage, full coverage, prescription drug coverage, no premiums for supplementary insurance, no co-pays or deductibles, and coverage for vision, hearing, and dental care.
As for taxes, the U.S. has never had a confiscatory tax system that deprives the nation of wealthy and well-off people.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato. Additional information by Yezzi on this article can be found at www.mankatofreepress.com.
Sources:
1. The Senate Medicare for All Bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text
2. Go to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718110919.htm
3. Go to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/02/is-the-nhs-the-worlds-best-healthcare-system
Another good source: The British Quality Care Commission
Go to https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/state-care
Your View: Medicare for all would be better than GOP health plan, Ron Yezzi, posted July 25, 2017
Printed Jul 28, 2017
The only part of the Affordable Care Act that’s failing is the free market part, the failed competition among private insurers supposed to serve individuals. And there’s a straightforward solution: Make health insurance mandatory just as auto insurance is.
But single payer is a better system.
Bob Jentges says some nasty things about single payer health insurance (Free Press, July 9). For example, he points out that in 2015, “more than 45,000 Canadians” (that’s all of 1/8 of 1 percent of the total population) were so dissatisfied with their single payer system that they went outside the country for health care.
Can you even imagine Jentges’ outrage when Republicans in the U.S. offered a proposal eliminating health care coverage for 489 to 533 times that number, that is, 22 million to 24 million people?
Let me suggest we look at a country where a single-payer system has been working successfully for a half century, and its satisfaction approval rating is 75 percent. It’s called “Medicare,” and it’s in the U.S. It’s a simple, straightforward system that we understand, and it has low administration costs.
As they age, most Americans look forward to getting Medicare benefits. Isn’t it a shame that Republicans are dedicated to suffocating Medicare rather than expanding it?
We can solve any looming financial problems presently posed by Medicare. And we can provide Medicare for all. But it’s going to require higher efficiency and will cost some money.
Moreover, you need to overcome the false or misleading promises of those Republican politicians trying to convince you that you can get something for nothing — whether it’s universal access, high quality care or cheap premiums.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: Republicans deserve single-payer system, Ron Yezzi, posted Mar. 14, 2017
· What is the huge blunder in Republicans’ determination to destroy the Affordable Care Act?
Answer: We should see the ACA as a last chance for private insurers to prove that free market competition through exchanges can provide affordable, effective health care; and their skyrocketing premiums and even withdrawals from exchanges are proof of their failures. By attacking the ACA, Republicans are attacking their own belief in free market competition.
To promote that competition, the ACA provides means to greatly increase the pool of customers available to private insurers — by providing subsidies for lower income persons to get health insurance and by including an insurance mandate so there is a penalty for not buying insurance.
The private insurers’ failure results from either a greedy demand for higher profits or the actual costs of providing health care. Let’s put greed aside. Then high premiums and withdrawals reflect the actual costs of health care. That money has to come from somewhere.
The straightforward way to make the free market exchanges more successful requires strengthening the insurance mandate so that more people buy insurance rather than pay the penalty. But Republicans are hung up on doing away with the mandate instead.
So they want to take everybody back to the pre-ACA free market where “health” insurers compete to insure healthier people and avoid insuring sicker people. The Republican shell game to hide harmful health consequences of abolishing the ACA includes phony solutions like health savings accounts, selling insurance across state lines, Medicaid block grants, high risk pools, tax credits, “patient freedom,” and fiscal chicanery.
What Republicans deserve for their bad faith is establishment of a single payer system.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
The letter above led to a critical letter to the Free Press from Gary Lindsay. Below you will find his letter along with my response (on the Free Press website).
Your View: Gary Lindsay, Single payer isn't the answer, posted Mar 23, 2017
Regarding Ron Yezzi's letter of March, 17: He needs to do better homework.
The Affordable Care Act should have been named the UNaffordable Care Act. I own a small business and supply good insurance to my employees free of charge. After Obamacare kicked in, my monthly fee went from and average of $300 per month per employee to $440 per month per employee. Is that affordable?
Regards the penalty. It was cheaper to not buy insurance and then buy insurance and pay the penalty when you need it. (Dumb).
Pool of insurers: I certainly did not find any great "pool of insurers" to find a reasonable rate. I ended up taking away that benefit from my employees and let them go on their own.
Private insurers: Private insurers are by far the best way to go. I have been in the health care business for 20 years. We deal with all the carriers. Medicare, Medicaid, VA and private. Just let the private insurers compete with each other nationwide and the rates will drop. Let the government subsidize payments for the poor. The government should do away with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system and contract to a private carrier.
Single payer system: Are you promoting the single payer system? That was not clear. If you are, take a look at Canada and the United Kingdom. Their system is horrible. Lengthy waits, selective surgery for the elderly. Shades of our VA system.
Mayo Clinic gets lots of patients from Canada when the lines get too backed up. What would we do with a single payer system. Send our patients to Mexico?
Wait and see what the Republicans come up with before you criticize them.
Gary Lindsay
North Mankato
My Reply to Gary Lindsay's Letter, posted on the Free Press website, March 23, 2017
Let’s look at Gary Lindsay’s letter.
Comment 1
He says: “The Affordable Care Act should have been named the UNaffordable Care Act.” Well, tell that to the 20 million people who are able to get health coverage because of the ACA.
In mentioning his own provision of health care for his employees, Lindsay makes clear that health coverage is both important and worthwhile. So he should be celebrating the ACA’s providing health coverage for an additional 20 million people and bringing the percentage of uninsured down to record lows. And he should be outraged by a Republican plan that will take away health coverage from 14 million people in one year and a total of 24 million people by 2026. But I don’t get that impression from his letter.
Comment 2
Lindsay pinpoints a basic flaw with the ACA relating to the insurance mandate that messes up the insurance markets: “It was cheaper to not buy insurance and then buy insurance and pay the penalty when you need it. (Dumb).” If he had read Ron Yezzi’s letter, he would have seen the obvious correction for the flaw: “The straightforward way to make the free market exchanges more successful requires strengthening the insurance mandate so that more people buy insurance rather than pay the penalty.” Congress could have done this as a way of fixing problems. But Republican control of the House and Senate blocked any attempts to improve the ACA. If Lindsay regards the flaw to be “dumb,” what does he have to say about Republican opposition to correcting the flaw? And what does he have to say about a Republican plan that abolishes the mandate, while retaining the ACA’s provision that insurers cannot refuse coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Would “dumber” and “dumbest” be appropriate?
Comment 3
Lindsay’s health care solution: “Just let the private insurers compete with each other nationwide and the rates will drop.” This smacks more of ideology than fact. I will grant however that private insures can drop monthly premiums to $10. or less—provided that they just cover the costs of aspirin and ibuprofen.
Comment 4
Here are some counters to other Lindsay declarations:
a. 75% of people covered by Medicare say the program is working well; and 65% of those covered by Medicaid say the same. (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015)
b. Quality of Care in VA Health System Compares Well to Other Health Settings (Source: Rand Corporation, 2016)
c. U.S. health care system ranks last among 11 industrialized nations. . . . Researchers . . . ranked the United Kingdom first overall.(Source: Commonwealth Fund, reported in Washington Times, 2014, prior to implementation of the ACA)
d. Canadians strongly support their health care system. (Source: Wikipedia entry, “Health Care in Canada”) The entry has a lot of information, including waiting times.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Scalia twisted meaning to fit his ideology, Ron Yezzi, posted April 9, 2016
Christine Flowers’ recent Free Press columns endlessly praising Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial originalism and castigating President Obama’s not attending his funeral ignore relevant facts.
Obama made an extremely generous, gracious public statement upon announcement of the death, along with a visitation while Scalia’s body lay-in-state at the Supreme Court building. This was much more generous and gracious than disdain Scalia showed by not attending State of the Union Addresses for 19 years.
The most original part of Scalia’s “originalism” was his twisting the Constitution’s meaning to fit his extreme, conservative ideology.
District of Columbia v. Heller was a classic case. The Second Amendment has two clauses. Scalia insisted that the second clause should be considered first and, moreover, should be considered independently of the first clause. He then cited some legal views current at the time that applied to the clause standing alone and concluded there was, constitutionally, a private right to keep guns. But he ignored the fact that the founders of the Constitution rejected that approach by inserting the first clause before the second.
For contraceptives, abortion, and same sex marriage, he interpreted freedom of religion to include the right to impose your religious values on others — a view that contradicts the meaning of freedom of religion.
He revered 10th Amendment protection of states’ rights, except when a Florida Supreme Court decision probably would have led to Al Gore’s election as president.
By equating money with speech, he enshrined in constitutional law the principle that the more money you have, the more free speech you’re entitled to.
He often advocated majority rule overriding the Constitution’s judicial protection of minority rights.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Comment: Since the Free Press has a 275-word limit on letters to the editior, I did not include the following;
It makes sense to treat corporations as persons for limited commercial purposes. For example, a corporation files a tax return just like an individual person does. But attributing to the Constitution's founders the idea (claim) that corporations have rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion just like natural persons (as Scalia's "originalism" requires) is nonsense.
Your View: Transportation funding plan a GOP scam; Ron Yezzi, May 17, 2018
“Hear ye! Hear ye! Solve Minnesota’s transportation needs with the GOP’s extortion scam! The Free Press and Blue Earth County Commissioner Stuehrenberg are on board. Why not you?”
Extortion: Republican legislators block any tax increases for transportation needs. They reject compromise and demand capitulation.
Scam: Tax increases for transportation are unnecessary; we can get $250 million/year for transportation simply by eliminating $250 million/year in wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget. We can get something for nothing! Let’s make this permanent with a constitutional amendment. What a great deal!
The Free Press goes along and proposes eliminating $250 million it thinks we overspend every year on education and health care: “We think there are savings to be found in these two categories.”
Stuehrenberg goes along and, with “magician’s” mathematics, reduces a permanent $250 million/year loss to nothing: “With the gradual phase-in of this dedication, no other areas of state government need to be impacted by investing in our transportation superstructure.”
Why it’s a scam, not an honest choice: Since $250 million/year is a lot of money and “wasteful spending” is a breezy term without specifics, it fosters only the illusion of solving a problem and creates problems in other areas.
$250 million/year doesn’t solve a $600 million/year problem; it guarantees falling further behind in meeting needs. (Given this long-standing transportation debate, “Something is better than nothing” is insufficient, especially when there’s an extortion scam.)
Failing to meet public needs in other areas like education, health care, and local government aid so as to get transportation money (Robbing Peter to Pay Paul Syndrome) is socially irresponsible.
Reasoning person’s solution: Vote out of office the extremist Republicans messing up Minnesota’s future.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Comments Added on the Free Press Website:
Comment 1.1
Why am I making such a fuss when the result is the same for me and the Free Press: Let the voters decide? Answer: You need to pay attention to the details.
I give an accurate description (not a biased one) that there’s an extortion scam here (I lay it out very clearly). And the only effective solution to a reasoning person is to vote the extremist Republicans out of office.
The Free Press (FP) doesn’t call it an extortion scam (saying just that the Republicans have been naughty and the Democrats nice, and that the Republican plan doesn’t really deal with the $600 million/year problem the FP has been harping on all year). The FP then capitulates and supports their plan, even holding that there’s $250 million/year overspending on education and health care. This is all acceptable to the FP. And if voters are dissatisfied, they can always express that by voting against the constitutional amendment. I see a difference here.
Comment 1.2
Some starter questions I would put to the FP with respect to education and health care:
a. Can you specify what overspending you’re talking about?
b. Can you show that all real education and health care needs are being met, so any savings can go elsewhere?
c. Would you retract the FP editorial about low reimbursements to dentists for Medicaid patients?
d. Do you oppose any expansion of MinnesotaCare and any higher reimbursements in MinnesotaCare?
e. Do you oppose State. Rep. Jack Considine’s bill to raise wages for underpaid healthcare workers?
f. Do you oppose universal pre-kindergarten education for 4-year olds?
g. If you Google “MN decreases in public higher education history” and read ten items there, would you decide to ignore them?
Comment 1.3
Far from calling for voting them out of office, the FP (May 13) is willing to forgive all Republican sins if they will just include the Highway 14 Project in the bonding bill. Republicans can win a feather in their cap (and reelection?). I realize that a lot of good people have worked hard on this for a long time and there have been problems with MNDOT’s setting of priorities. And the project is well-deserving of passage in the bill. Local Democrats have pushed for it.
But there’s a tragi-comedy here. By far, the biggest hindrance to solving Minnesota’s transportation problems has been continuing Republican shortchanging of transportation needs for decades. Yet, instead of being held responsible for their never-ending perfidy, they get credit (and reelection) for any projects they approve.
Comment 2
I’m using the $250 million and $600 million figures commonly mentioned. But these figures will change over time. More than $250 million/year may come in; but it will still be far less than the amount needed; and it will mean even more money being taken away from other priorities like health care and education. Also, the amount needed will increase even more because of increased deterioration of roads, etc. due to huge shortages in funds available.
Comment 3
Let’s follow the scam’s shortfall problem – providing only $250 million per year when we need $600 million/year in additional funds. How much will need to be raised annually over the next 10 years to make up for the annual shortfall? For each year, the first figure is the shortfall, the second is the needed amount annually for the next 10 years to make up for it. (I do some rounding out.)
Year 1 - $350 million; $635 million
Year 2 - $385 million; $673.5 million
Year 3 - $423.5 million; $715.8 million
Year 4 - $465.8 million; $762.4 million
Year 5 - $512.4 million; $813.6 million
Year 6 - $563.6 million; $870 million
Year 7 - $620 million; $932 million
Year 8 - $682 million; $1.00 billion
Year 9 - $750 million; $1.075 billion
Year 10 - $825million; $1.158 billion
So after 10 years, instead of needing $600 million/year in additional funds, you will need almost twice that, $1.158 billion/year.
Comment 4
The GOP handling of transportation problems is a poster child for their handling of all (or nearly all) state funding issues.
If I were to add two words to my 275-word letter, they would be “present and” in the last line:
Reasoning person’s solution: Vote out of office the extremist Republicans messing up Minnesota’s present and future.
Your View: Free Press let GOP off easy on compromise; Ron Yezzi, posted August 21, 2016
For months, Free Press editorials have pleaded for compromise in St. Paul, with too much inattention to what must be included. And they threatened lawmakers of both parties with voter wrath if they fail to do their job by not compromising.
Now, The Free Press is making a strong editorial case (Aug. 17) for funding light rail in the Metro area and is urging House Speaker Kurt Daudt and fellow Republicans to support it so that compromise can be reached. Does this mean that, if Republicans refuse, The Free Press will call voter wrath down upon them and absolve Democrats of blame for gridlock? Or would The Free Press be satisfied with a compromise whereby Gov. Dayton and Democrats drop their insistence on light rail funding?
As I see it, you can’t consider compromise without taking up the issues related to it. The Free Press should have made its case for light rail months ago as a necessary condition in any compromise.
In the same way, it should have made the case for raising taxes on drivers who use roads and bridges, rather than being silent about the Republican position that somebody else should pay for them.
Similarly, The Free Press has been hyping the tax cut and bonding bills as available, major compromise successes, even though this hides the bigger transportation failure and other problems.
Minnesota’s failure to provide adequate transportation funding is the poster child for its failure to keep up with public needs for decades now. Who bears the blame? Well, the Republican Party hasn’t supported a gas tax increase since 1967. And the party’s record on nearly all tax increases isn’t any better.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Comments Added on the Free Press Website That I Could Not Include IN A 275-Word Letter:
[1] Transportation funding is a poster child because it is a public need that everyone can quickly and easily understand. And if you can’t get adequate funds for transportation, less obvious public needs are in even greater trouble.
Despite how much money Minnesota presently spends on transportation, in recent decades, we keep falling further and further behind. There was no gas tax increase for 20 years (1988 to 2008). So there was no keeping up with just inflation, much less other needs. In 2008, there was an 8.5 cent gas tax increase; but it was clear, even then, it provided too little funding. Now MnDot projects a need for an additional $16.3 billion in funding over the next 20 years. We need long-term, dedicated, much increased funding for transportation.
[2] When voters (and newspapers) let the Republican Party get away with continual opposition to tax increases on drivers who use roads and bridges, they endorse sticking somebody else with the costs and/or continuing deterioration of roads and bridges. When Republicans advocate taking money from the general fund for roads and bridges, they are trying to force other people to take over costs drivers should be covering. So college students will pay higher tuition, dentists will not get higher reimbursements for treating their Medicaid patients, there will be less money for job retraining, etc. The list can go on and on. Similarly, when Republicans stack a bonding bill with $300 million in road and bridge projects that will be paid by all taxpayers, that’s money taken away from other needed capital projects, and it’s a tax break for drivers.
The Republican Party’s dismal, decades-long record on transportation needs shows that voting in Republican majorities in the Minnesota House and/or Senate or Republican governors is a vote for irresponsibility about transportation needs—whether in the form of unfair taxation or neglect.
[3] In hyping the tax cut and bonding bills for passage in a special session, the Free Press kept pointing out all the good things in the bills, while ignoring the downside. It ignored Republican House Speaker Daudt’s intentionally orchestrated chaos and panic at the end of the session--designed to torpedo any long-term solution for transportation needs that included tax increases and to guarantee a bonding bill favorable to Republican interests. It was a strategy designed to assure reelection of enough Republicans to retain majority control of the House. In compromising between Republicans’ initially proposed $600 million bonding bill and the Senate’s initially proposed $1.4 billion one, Daudt proposed a $1 billion bill stacked with $300 million in road and bridge projects, while also leaving out Metro light rail. So the net effect would be reelection of the Republican House majority—which, in turn, assures continuing gridlock in funding long-term transportation needs, thereby frustrating the top priority the Free Press has been calling for all along during the legislative session.
[4] The Republican long-term solution to transportation needs calls for not increasing taxes, but rather for ignoring the needs or for funding some of them by using general funds. I’ve already mentioned how this allows drivers to avoid paying for the roads and bridges they use, while increasing costs for others. But planning to meet transportation needs through vague references to future cuts in general funds is a case of, literally, not knowing what you’re doing. You don’t commit yourself to any specific cuts and don’t consider the consequences of the cuts. That’s also why I didn’t like proposals for compromise from Gov. Dayton and Democrats that included future, unspecified, cuts in general fund spending.
The Republican approach to transportation needs also focuses on immediate costs alone, in a way that ignores traffic congestion, safety, air pollution, health, and climate change.
Your View: GOP gas tax opposition is extreme, costly, Ron Yezzi, June 7, 2016
If a Free Press editorial (June 5) can offer insufficient cordial interaction as a major stumbling block to legislative compromise, let me suggest a bigger problem, the GOP’s outrageous position.
Since 1975, Republicans, as a Party, have opposed every gas tax increase. 1975 is more than four decades ago. Since then, there have been six gas tax increases—all pushed through because of the DFL. How much transportation revenue would have been lost without those gas tax increases? What would be the condition of transportation in Minnesota now, without those revenues?
For perspective, where would the Free Press be if its prices were forever frozen at 1975 rates and gaining new revenue was replaced with budget cutting?
In current negotiations, when Republicans once again insisted on taking tax increases completely off the table for transportation needs, it both attacked long-term transportation funding and twisted out of shape consideration of the surplus and bonding bills. It should be viewed as a death blow to “collaboration, cooperation, and bipartisanship.”
Moreover, the time for merely token tax increases for transportation is past. At this point, It would be too much like allowing wife beaters to continue the beatings by agreeing to skip the practice on Sundays.
Why are Republicans able to get away with these practices for decades, while DFLers take flak for responsible tax increases?
Voters have the power to protect Minnesota’s well-being and prosperity from Republican extremism by preventing Republican majorities in the state legislature. They should use it.
Labeling a real outrage as an “outrage” should not be put down as simply partisanship.
See the Free Press website for additional comments.
Comments added on Free Press website:
During recent months, Free Press Editor Joe Spear has put his full heart and mind into advocating a legislative compromise. In trying to be an honest broker, he has been even-handed in chiding both sides to compromise. I admire and respect his effort. But since he has such a high stake in getting a compromise, any compromise, the position can leave a person vulnerable to giving up the most and overlooking the most with respect to an agreement. A shrewd bargainer can take advantage of that. I think House Speaker Kurt Daudt has shown himself to be just that sort of shrewd bargainer.
In my letter, I want readers to know that the Republican Party sits at the bargaining table with an outrageous (extraordinarily extreme, unreasonable) demand. And when Kurt Daudt says there will be no gas tax increase as long as he is Speaker, voters should see this as clear evidence that you don’t want a Republican majority in the Minnesota House. You also don’t want Daudt in any high position.
At some time before the election, as a matter of journalism, I hope that the Free Press will point out how extreme the Republican position is. This is no longer the Party of Al Quie, Arnie Carlson, and Dave Durenberger. And they were all conservatives. While they were in office, I usually disagreed with their conservatism. But they were mild compared to the anti-tax, anti-government Republicans now.
In 1975, 1980, 1983, and 1988, gas tax increase bills became laws because the DFLers controlled the House, the Senate, and the Governor’s Office. In 1981, despite Republican opposition, the DFL controlled House and Senate passed a tax increase bill that contained a gas tax increase. Republican Governor Al Quie refused to sign the bill; but he did not veto it, so that it became law. That ended his political career. In 2008, against Republican Party opposition, 6 House Republicans joined DFLers in overriding Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a gas tax increase bill. They were treated as outcasts by the Party, although two of them did manage to get re-elected as Republicans subsequently.
It's worth noting that, until the Pawlenty veto override in 2008, we went for 20 years with no gas tax increase under Governors Carlson (Republican), Ventura (Independent), and Pawlenty (Republican). With inflation alone, it took $182 In 2008 to buy what you could get for $100 in 1988. And, again, that says nothing about the deterioration of roads and bridges and the added traffic congestion during those years.
If you just look at the effects of inflation alone since 1975, it takes $444.72 now to buy what $100 would buy in 1975. And that says nothing about the added deterioration of roads and bridges and the added traffic congestion over those 41 years.
As the latest example of Republican intransigence on tax increases for transportation, consider Gov. Dayton’s compromise offer made toward the end of this year’s legislative session. As a concession, he agreed to taking $200 million per year from the general fund (a Republican priority that DFLers universally dislike) and he confined the funding of mass transit to a .5% sales tax increase in the Twin Cities Metro area only. Kurt Daudt rejected the proposal immediately because it contained tax increases. For more details, you can go to this report from MPR news:
http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2016/05/dayton-makes-two-offers-on-transportation-funding/
For gas tax increases, I started with 1975 because of my MNDOT source (below):
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/about/pdfs/historychart.pdf
The last time there was a gas tax increase when Republicans held majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate was 1967.
The GOP no-tax-increase stance “twisted out of shape consideration of the surplus and bonding bills” by loading the bills with transportation projects that squeezed out other needed projects typically in surplus and bonding bills. Because of the 275-word limit, I had to leave out another consequence, the Republican attempt to use transportation needs as an excuse to rob or “starve” the general fund.
Your View: City Manager should revisit handrails issue; Ron Yezzi, posted January 26, 2018
Can we revisit the issue of handrails in aisles at Verizon Wireless Center?
Answers to Ask Us questions list reasons offered against handrails.
These reasons have basic problems: Taken collectively, they point toward the strange conclusion there should be no handrails at any event centers. Taken individually, they don’t hold up well and they leave out, probably, the fundamental question: Should the safety and enjoyment of event attendees be a lower priority than avoiding costs of installing handrails?
Reason 1: Handrails can block sight lines of the ice or stage.
Response: Handrails are exceptionally minor inconveniences affecting very few people.
Reason 2: If rapid evacuation is necessary, handrails can slow things down.
Response: If panicky people are charging to get out, handrails provide a safer and more orderly exit than open, grip-less stairs.
Reason 3: Handrails are useless for people with food or drink in both hands.
Response: Relatively few trips up or down stairs involve food or drink in both hands. Even when they do, persons can gain more stability leaning against handrails for better balance.
Reason 4: Persons with problems using steps to get to their seats can move to more accessible seats or can ask ushers for assistance.
Response: Longtime hockey season ticketholders especially enjoy talking, and cheering, with people who’ve been around them for years. And nearly everyone would prefer to get to seats on one’s own with handrails there rather than having to ask ushers for help.
While Bill Bassett and Pat Hentges are two of the best reasons for living in Mankato over the past half century, I think our city manager needs a better consideration of this issue.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: Folly dominates fiscal policy, Ron Yezzi, posted September 17, 2018
Aside from Donald Trump’s daily outrages and the subsequently meek acceptance by elected Republicans, there are other reasons for voting Democratic.
Consider the Seven Pillars of Folly that dominate Republican fiscal policy:
■ Passing tax cuts that end up increasing income inequality by favoring the wealthy and also produce huge deficits.
■ Saving money by falling behind through under funding.
■ Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
■ Deregulating or not regulating now so somebody else can pay later the costs of pollution, climate change, and free market excesses.
■ Using “socialism” as a scare word.
■ Worshiping the free market as a magic bullet.
■ Trying to save money by diminishing the social safety net.
The Pillars rest on the basic foundation that you can get something for nothing. And, since 1980 when Ronald Reagan became president, many millions of voters fell for the follies. It’s time for them to stop.
We keep falling further and further behind in meeting public needs (whether it’s education, health care, infrastructure, climate change, the safety net, job training). And the further we fall behind, the harder it gets to catch up.
Put aside the word "socialism.” Government is no more a magic bullet than the free market is. But if you pay attention to U.S. history, you find that government interventions to serve the public good have contributed as much, even arguably more, to the progress and well being of the nation as the free market. Sometimes the interventions save money and sometimes they cost money.
Given the enormous private affluence in the United States, the notion that we are being taxed into slavery is ridiculous and threatens our future.
Additional comments posted on the Free Press website:
Comment 1
1. Supply side economics (Tax cuts produce so much economic growth that government will get more revenue than it was getting before the cuts) embraced by the Republican Party since the Reagan presidency produces huge deficits. It is also Republican orthodoxy that you should not raise taxes to decrease deficits. Deficit Results: for Reagan, $1.86 trillion,186% increase over predecessor over 8 years; for GHW Bush, $1.55 trillion, 54% increase over predecessor in just 4 years; GW Bush, $5.85 trillion, 101 % increase over predecessor in 8 years. For Trump, projected deficit currently at $3.2 trillion for the next 10 years. See the Sept. 17 Free Press editorial.
2.It should not be surprising that tax cuts give a temporary upward burst to the economy. If you borrow a lot of money, then you have more money to spend. But it’s still borrowed money that will increase the national debt, if it’s not paid back.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
3.For information on growing income inequality, with plenty of graphs, go to:
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
Comment 2
The Seven Pillars constitute the Republican strategy to oppose all tax increases. For examples of the falling behind problem in Minnesota, consider their transportation proposal (provide $250 million annually, when $600 million annually is necessary), expansion of rural broadband (provide $20 million annually when $35.7 million annually is necessary), their inadequate bonding proposals. Consider their rejection of minimum wage and gas tax increases, in Minnesota and nationally. Consider the American Society of Civil Engineers D+ gradeon upgrading the nation’s infrastructure, which is continually blocked by Republicans refusing to raise the additionally necessary funds.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul: Consider that $250 million annually that Republicans in Minnesota want to get for transportation. Instead of a tax increase, they want to take the money away from the General Fund budget. But they never indicate specifically what will be cut from the General Fund. It might mean that fewer students can afford to go to college, some persons with mental problems may not get treatment, some others may not get needed job training. It becomes a shell game moving money around so that we do not realize the downside consequences of the robbing Peter to pay Paul actions.
Republican concerns about the sustainability of the social safety net don’t lead to proposing increased funding; instead they propose diminishing the safety net by cutting benefits and never expanding it. So they oppose removing the cap on payroll income (currently $128,400.) subject to the Social Security tax. They won’t support any increase in employee or employer contributions to Medicare. They won’t support a single payer system that would make health care available to all and also can save money. They oppose numerous government regulations that protect consumers. They oppose minimum wage increases. The list can go on.
Comment 3
As evidence for the value of government interventions that serve the public good, I am providing a PARTIAL list of 100 government agencies, government services, and laws.
Federal Government Agencies:
FRB (Federal Reserve Board, est. 1913)
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission, est. 1934)
FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1934)
FDA (Food and Drug Administration, est. 1906)
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture, est. 1862)
NPS (National Park Service, est. 1916)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, est. 1970)
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, est. 1970)
CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission, est. 1972)
VA (Veterans Administration, est. 1930 but had earlier government predecessors)
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, est. 1970)
NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board, est. 1926)
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, est. 1978 but had earlier government predecessors)
NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, est. 1935)
FAA (Federal Aviation Agency, est. 1958 but had earlier government predecessors)
FHA (Federal Housing Authority, est. 1934)
ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission, est. 1887)
FCC (Federal Communications Commission, est. 1934, but had a radio predecessor)
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, est. 1908)
DHS (Department of Homeland Security, est. 2001)
IRS (Internal Revenue Service, est. 1862)
USSS (United States Secret Service, est. 1865)
USFS (United States Forest Service, est. 1905)
NIH (National Institutes of Health, 1937 but had government predecessors)
CDC (Center for Disease Control, est. 1946)
STB (Surface Transportation Board, est. 1995 as successor to ICC)
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, est. 1958)
NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities, est. 1965)
Fannie Mae (est. 1938)
Freddie Mac (est. 1970
SBA (Small Business Administration, est. 1953 but had government predecessors)
NEA (National Endowment for the Arts, est. 1965)
USACE (Army Corps of Engineers, est. 1775)
USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, est. 1940 but had government predecessors)
NSF (National Science Foundation, est. 1950)
NAS (National Academy of Sciences, est. 1863)
NHSC (National Health Service Corps, est. 1972)
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, est. 1958)
ONR (Office of Naval Research, est. 1946)
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, est. 1901)
PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, est. 1974)
CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, est. 2010)
AmeriCorps (est. 1992 but had government predecessors)
Peace Corps (est. 1961)
BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, est. 1972 but had government predecessors)
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey, est. 1879)
Government Run Services:
U.S. Post Office
Police
Firefighters
The Military
Veterans Administration Hospitals and Medical Care
Public Education
Airports
Air Traffic Controllers
Airport Security
Medicare
Social Security
Medicaid
Public Parks and Recreation
Sports Complexes, Large and Small
Road Construction and Maintenance
Sanitation Workers
Drinking Water and Sewage Treatment
Veterans Administration Facilities
Headstart
Dam Construction
Public Housing
Public Transportation
Public Libraries
Interstate Highways
Pell Grants
U. S. Coast Guard
Laws:
Minimum Wage Laws
Child Labor Laws
Unemployment Compensation
Disability Insurance
Workmen’s Compensation
Zoning Laws
Building Codes
Antitrust Laws
Sanitation Laws
Vehicle Inspection, Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Laws
Professional Licensing
Income Tax Laws
Eminent Domain
Mandated Insurance
Smoking Bans
Seat Belt Laws
Booster Seat Laws
Affirmative Action
The Affordable Care Act
Equal Pay Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Gun Control Laws
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank)
Title IX
AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
Anti-Discrimination Laws
For another example, consider the period 1860 - 1970. The U.S. government:
Conducted and won the Civil War
Passed the Homestead Act, providing 160 acre land grants to settle federal owned territory
Made possible the loans necessary to build the transcontinental railroad
President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation
Passed laws providing land grants to railroad companies to spread rail services throughout the nation
Passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery
Passed the 14th Amendment--Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause
Passed the 15th Amendment, which prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
Provided land grants for establishment of agricultural schools that established the basis for public higher education in the U.S.
By 1870, elementary school public education had been established in all the states.
Your View: Trump both a nightmare and hope [RY], Ron Yezzi, submitted July 13, 2018
How can Donald Trump be both our worst nightmare and our greatest hope?
First, the nightmare:
Cruelty is not greatness. Bullying, fear-mongering, and hatred are not democratic values. Vilifying peaceful protestors is not patriotic. And falsehoods are not truths. Even a million tweets and rally blusters to the contrary from Donald Trump cannot make them what they are not.
Trump is like a coach declaring a Super Bowl victory after the opening kickoff of every game. And lots of people willingly bask in the glow of his shallow self-congratulation.
His tactics will produce some short-term gains that hide later, disastrous, long-term consequences.
He is more interested in dividing the world into autocratic dictatorships than upholding democracy.
Trump and the Republican Party are taking the nation into irreversible decline.
Second, the hope:
Nightmares can wake people up.
Trump is the flashy reflection of reckless Republican extremism; he can take the current Republican Party down with him.
If this happens, our nation will break away from the gradual taking over of government by a Republican minority continuously opposed to the general interests and needs of contemporary society.
Think gerrymandering, voter suppression, immigrant cruelty, opposing campaign finance reform, stacking courts with ultra conservative judges, producing political gridlock, supporting rightwing attacks on civil rights, opposing a woman’s right to choose, kowtowing to the NRA, increasing environmental pollution, denying climate change, diminishing the social safety net, passing tax cuts overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, promoting greater income inequality, producing huge deficits, ignoring rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, failing to provide universal health care, shortchanging educational funding, and attacking government’s necessary role in 21st century society.
How this goes is a race against time.
Your View: Trump, GOP lies amount to new plague, Ron Yezzi, posted Dec 1, 2017
A plague, The Black Death, struck in the 14th century. But what about The Lying Plague right now? The Washington Post lists Donald Trump as making 1,628 false or misleading claims in just the 10 months since his inauguration.
You cannot believe and/or support Trump without catching this plague. The Lying Plague will bring out the worst within you. It will prey upon your weaknesses — whether they be fears and insecurities, anger and frustration, prejudices, rejection of change, the desire to just turn away, being poorly informed, devotion to outdated ideologies, or intellectual laziness. Supporters function like believers because they become enablers, even when they should know better.
Donald Trump is the current Grand Infector of The Lying Plague, but he’s not its originator. The Republican Party set the stage for him with continuing distortions for a generation.
The GOP posed as protector of fiscal responsibility while Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II greatly increased the national debt and promoted deregulation until it resulted in the financial collapse that brought on The Great Recession.
The GOP posed as protector of patriotism while their policies continually undermined the right to equal opportunity — with voter suppression and gerrymandering, tax policies overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, opposition to government spending on public needs, continually trying to stack the courts with conservative jurists and cruel attacks on the movement toward universal health care.
The GOP’s opposition to government regulation became an excuse for denying scientific facts about climate change and pollution that threaten human well-being.
Some Republicans (too few) have joined the anti-Trump movement. But it’s hard to see how Republicans can stop their own Plague.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
My View: Democratic legitimacy threatened by Trump, GOP; Ron Yezzi; posted Apr. 30, 2017
What happens when the powers of democracy remain, but its authority is dangerously diminishing? Answer: We’re finding out.
The electoral process retains its power to establish political officeholders. But it’s increasingly difficult to respect its authority when the process is corrupted by massive injections of money from special interest groups, by gerrymandering, by voter suppression, by an outdated electoral college system, by a two-senators/state system that in effect disenfranchises tens of millions of voters in more populous states, by fake news and other manipulative media techniques, by degrading of truth by opportunistic politicians, and even intervention by Russia.
The U.S. Supreme Court retains power as final arbiter of constitutional law. But how can we respect its authority as an independent branch of government when judicial decisions become manufactured products of a political party’s power to approve only justices who serve their interests? The addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch through a simple majority vote in the Senate completes politicalization of the court. It has become naïve to view court rulings as wise decisions of an independent judiciary.
The U.S. House and Senate retain their power to set national laws. But polarized gridlock among political parties, with its opportunistic obstructionism and protection of special interests, leads to disrespect for its authority. And the corruption of the electoral process just enhances the disrespect.
The powers of the presidency remain. But accession to the office by Donald Trump demeans its authority. As candidate and as president, he obliterates standards of truth and honor — with a continual flow of falsehoods and false promises.
He shares many of the same personality traits that make North Korea’s Kim Jong-un a dangerous national leader: narcissistic and authoritarian tendencies, militaristic tendencies, promoting a cult of personality, making outrageous claims and threats, impulsive and erratic behavior, unpredictability, secretive protectionism, trying to get away with whatever he can, never taking responsibility for mistakes, taking personal credit himself for what others do, extreme techniques of media manipulation, ignoring the distinction between truth and falsity, dishonorable attacks on political opponents, a pattern of bullying, bluff and bluster confrontations, turning his back on previous commitments, and arousing people’s fears in order to enhance his power.
This comparison with Kim Jong-un however offers both a consolation and a hope. (1) The consolation: No matter how worrisome the weaknesses in our democracy, the American people still are far, far better off than the North Korean dictatorship. And (2), The hope: The Trump Presidency is a loud wakeup call that the American people can, and need to, take action to protect their democracy.
Political parties and presidents are never perfect. But they also are not equally imperfect. So which party bears primary responsibility for the diminishing respect for authority? Clearly, the Republican Party is the chief instigator of already listed actions or inaction that are causing the problem.
It is not a matter of evil intentions; rather it is a matter of political survival. Here is an explanation people need to think about.
The present Republican Party is dominated by a deeply held, 18th and 19th century mindset that is increasingly outdated in the contemporary world; so they gradually resort to ever more extreme measures to retain political power.
To paraphrase: Government(G), taxes(T), and regulations(R) are prices we pay for civilization. As a society becomes more technologically advanced, as interrelationships within and between societies increase, as there is ever-growing recognition of the right to equal opportunity, increases in the GTR triumvirate are also necessary. Yet GTR has become the declared enemy of Republicans.
The anti-GTR agenda can even put science on an enemies list. The Environmental Protection Agency is under constant attack. Climate change deniers want the U.S. out of the Paris Accords on Climate Change. Groups of environmental scientists even feel compelled to protect the federal government’s accumulated scientific data from destruction by the Trump administration.
More deeply, the mindset relies on traditional, but now stunted, notions of individualism, responsibility and freedom. They remain fundamental, worthwhile values; but they require refurbishing additions.
For example, freedom is as much a matter of opportunity as it is of non-interference. And responsibility requires ever-increasing concern for social, rather than just personal, responsibility. Advancing scientific knowledge tells us much more about how these values actually function in society.
Transforming this mindset is not easy, as present divisions within the nation show. And poorly informed, easily distracted citizens do not help. But pessimism is not a solution.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato. Additional information by Yezzi on this article can be found at www.mankatofreepress.com.
Additional comments posted on the Free Press website:
Comment 1 – The Supreme Court
Over decades, some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court—specifically, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter—took more liberal positions that outraged conservative expectations. A reasonable person might conclude that they were independent Justices who became convinced of the soundness of the more liberal positions. But Republicans saw this more as acts of treason. So the Republican Party took steps to guarantee that their nominees were arch conservatives exceedingly unlikely to move to liberal positions on anything. They are Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. They were stacking the deck to manufacture conservative rulings. This politicalization of the Supreme Court culminated in the refusal to even consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court and then changing Senate rules to prevent a filibuster against the Trump nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Court. I suppose this has the virtue of laying bare the Supreme Court’s lack of status as an independent branch of government.
Democrats have appointed liberal judges to the Supreme Court. But they have not taken the extreme measures taken by Republicans.
The issue of originalism, activism, and a living Constitution is not a matter I am going to take up here.
Comment 2 – The Republican Party and Lost Respect for Authority
Money from Special Interest Groups – Republicans have opposed campaign finance reform, public financing of political campaigns, and a Constitutional amendment to negate both Citizens United and the treatment of money as free speech.
Gerrymandering – While gerrymandering is not something new, Republicans have refined it well beyond past practices in order to guarantee their own advantage.
Voter Suppression – Even though there is no evidence of significant voter fraud, Republicans push through bills in state legislatures intended to hinder voting by persons likely to vote Democratic—overly complicated voter registration procedures, voter id requirements, fewer hours for voting, fewer days for voting, fewer polling places.
Electoral College – Republicans support an outdated system which has led to 2 of the last 5 Presidential elections going to a candidate who lost the popular vote.
2-Senator/State System – California, with a population of 39,250,000, has the same amount of representation in the U.S. Senate as Wyoming, with 585,500. But Republicans have no interest in considering this difference, since so many less populous states are under Republican control.
Fake News and Media Manipulation – The Republican Far Right and Donald Trump rely heavily on this to gain political advantage. Trump and his spokespersons put out so many falsehoods (“alternative facts”) that they are pretty much a propaganda agency—as is their preferred cable news channel, Fox News.
Degrading of Truth – The Republicans are much worse than the Democrats. Donald Trump and “alternative facts.” The Republican denial of the science of climate change is typical. Also. see Comment 4.
Interference in our Electoral System by Russia – We have Donald Trump cheering Russia on for hacking Democrats’ email systems. And there are even investigations of Trump campaign contacts with Russia by federal agencies and the U.S. Congress.
The Supreme Court – See Comment 1
Gridlock in Congress – The unparalleled obstructionism by Republicans in opposing Obama Administration proposals is well documented. Republicans use threats of a government shutdown or government debt default to push their agenda. Currently (Apr. 24, 2017), Trump is threatening a government shutdown or sabotage of the Affordable Care Act unless he gets funds for his “Wall” along the Mexican border. Also see Comment 6.
The Presidency – Donald Trump was nominated for President by the Republican Party. Trump gets strong support from many Republican lawmakers who give him their loyalty as a way of pushing through their extreme conservative policies. To their credit, there are some Republicans who refuse to support Trump.
Comment 3 – The Republicans’ GTR Twist on Social Issues
While continually ranting against GTR, the GOP takes an opposite stance when it comes to social issues. When dealing with civil rights, gender equality, same sex marriage, transgender rights, institutionalized racism, health care, abortion, birth control programs, Planned Parenthood, gun control, income inequality, unions, minimum wage laws, consumer protections, freedom of religion—they are quite willing to use the resources of government, taxes, and regulations to support their extreme conservative agenda.
Comment 4 - Science
Additional Information: For more than 20 years, Republicans have defunded or banned scientific research on gun violence. Prominent Republicans have spread misinformation about rape and pregnancy, the risks of abortions, and Planned Parenthood. Evolution is also a target. The proposed Trump budget cuts decrease scientific research and hinder the ability of Federal departments and agencies to gather scientific data. The Trump administration appointed Rick Perry to head the Department of Energy (even though he pledged to eliminate the Department in 2012), a replacement for MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moriz. Basically, as a Party, Republicans favor their preferred beliefs regardless of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Comment 5 – Individualism, Responsibility, and Freedom
For an extended treatment of these values, you can go to this website and click on the topics: http://sites.google.com/site/rythinkingtoursmt6/
If the treatment there seems to be very hard going, you might consider one of the issues this way: Does compulsory education take away, or enhance, freedom? If you just interpret freedom in terms of non-interference, it takes away freedom. But if you interpret freedom also in terms of opportunity, then it enhances freedom because it greatly expands our opportunities to do things in life.
Comment 6 – Specific Example of the Republican Production of Gridlock by Refusing to Compromise
Consider the premier public issue of the past 8 years, the Affordable Care Act:
The overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians have always favored a single payer system. Yet, for the sake of compromise, the Democrats proposed a health plan initially advocated by a conservative think tank and modeled after Republican Gov. Romney's plan in Massachusetts. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus negotiated for months with a group of Republican Senators to get their support; and he got no cooperation at all. One of the group, Sen. Grassley, accused the Democrats of wanting to knock off grandma. The Democrats even gave up their strong preference for a public option in the ACA. Republicans responded by publicly attacking the ACA with all sorts of false charges: death panels, socialized medicine, cuts in Medicare benefits, etc And the Republicans wholly ignored all the improvements in the ACA--not just the great increase in no. of people insured, but also promotion of coordinated care and outcomes based pricing. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for the ACA.. After the ACA's passage, numerous Republican governors and state legislatures refused to implement the Medicaid portion of the ACA, sacrificing the health care of millions of lower income people, because of their ideological opposition. Democrats continually pointed out over the years that any major plan like the ACA would normally have problems arising up over time that need to be corrected. Ask Congressman Tim Walz to tell you how many changes have been in Medicare since its inception. But Republicans rejected all attempts to make improvements--because they were determined to kill the ACA. So instead, Republicans in the House voted again and again to repeal the ACA. (I lost count at 50 some times; but it may have risen into the 60s.) Republicans even forced a government shutdown over funding the ACA.
I can add something about the statement, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” if necessary.
Your View: Political irresponsibility set stage for Trump; Ron Yezzi; posted Jan 20, 2017
If a well-informed citizenry is the backbone of a strong democracy, then last November’s election sets off warning sirens. For example, 74 percent of Trump voters believe that, over the past five years, the percentage of uninsured Americans has either increased or stayed the same. The examples could go on.
While supporting well-informed citizens as a goal, realistically, I think it’s difficult to expect most people to be well-informed on their own, given their other interests. They depend heavily on various media and politicians acting responsibly to inform them.
Right now — whether it’s about political gridlock, economic insecurity, regulations, political correctness, immigration, or social change — many Americans have experienced resentment. Some of the resentment is justified, some is understandable but misguided, some is flatly reprehensible, and some is stern resistance to change. These are dangerous circumstances calling for political responsibility.
Instead, a resentment coalition strong enough to sway the election was fashioned by a narcissistic celebrity showman basking in his ability to obliterate standards of truth and honor: The more outrageous his claims or promises and the more abusive his attacks on opponents, the more they liked and believed in him.
Why was Donald Trump nominated by the Republican Party but could never be nominated by the Democratic Party? There’s not just one reason. But I would stress that the pattern of increasing political irresponsibility by Republicans set the stage for Trump.
As just two examples, I would cite, generally, gridlock created to shut down Obama administration initiatives and, particularly, attacks and distortions directed against The Affordable Care Act.
The party has shown that political irresponsibility works — at least for a while.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Material Added on the Free Press website as examples showing the pattern of Republican irresponsibility
Republican Political Irresponsibility:
Gerrymandering in hyper-mode
Voter Suppression
In effect, denying the legal right to abortion by eliminating any centers where abortions are performed
Acting to destroy Planned Parenthood by trying to get government defunding of all its services
The shell game approach to governing where you hide from people the real consequences of what you’re doing—whether it’s a replacement of the Affordable Care Act, privatizing Medicare and Social Security, substituting vouchers that provide inadequate funding, postponing the consequences of a legislative change for 10 years so persons will not realize how it will affect their long-range future, enticing people with the promise of more choices when they will lack the resources to take advantage of the better choices, starving Minnesota’s general fund
Producing gridlock by refusing any cooperation and then attacking President Obama for taking executive actions
Screaming continuously about the “Benghazi Scandal” when investigation showed there was nothing there
Starting one investigation after another solely to breed distrust
Denial of climate change
Techniques to stack the Supreme Court
Opposing all the Obama initiatives to get us out of the Great Recession
Followed by refusal to give the President credit for avoiding a Great Depression and for steadily improving the economy
So many lies and distortions
The resentment in society produced by all this political irresponsibility
Plus . . .
Additional Examples of Republican Irresponsibility:
Supplying a political home for racism, from the “southern strategy” to the present
Supplying a political home for rightwing extremist groups
Opposing reasonable gun control measures
Fracturing the right to freedom of religion by allowing some Christian groups to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else
Shell game again: Substituting block grants for direct appropriations with the promise of more choices, when it is just hiding the fact that there will be severe underfunding
Supporting union busting measures
Supporting and passing tax cuts that favor the rich and increase income inequality
Constantly advocating supply side economics (cutting taxes and claiming that it leads to greater investment that produces more government revenue than the lost tax revenues) even though the evidence shows that it doesn’t work
Opposing all tax increases, regardless of public needs—whether it is infrastructure, education, health care, reducing poverty, dealing with job losses
Opposing the collection of data to meet public needs
Opposing minimum wage laws and minimum wage increases
Opposing measures to stop pollution
Opposing and trying to eliminate an Office of Consumer Affairs
Opposing regulations to prevent practices that increase the dangers of financial collapse
Trying to eliminate Medicare with a voucher system rather than trying to strengthen Medicare’s financial sustainability
Opposing a single payer health care system like Medicare for all, which is simple and effective
Opposing and trying to destroy The Affordable Care Act by portraying it as socialized medicine or a government takeover of health care when it follows a basic model initially offered by Republicans
Opposing and trying to destroy The Affordable Care Act by blocking any attempts to improve it, particularly with respect to strengthening the insurance mandate so the insurance exchanges can function better
Opposing and trying to destroy The Affordable Care Act by constantly portraying it as a failure when facts show it to have major successes—such as insurance coverage for more than 20 million more people, better insurance coverage with basic health care requirements, elimination of insurance refusals because of pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26, shifting from fee-for-service to results-oriented billing, reducing medical bankruptcies, reducing the amount of money lost to hospitals through uncompensated services, reducing the rate of growth in health care expenses
Opposing and trying to destroy The Affordable Care Act by failing to educate people about the need for a strong insurance mandate to insure a large enough insurance pool
Trying to dismantle public education
Supporting the saddling of higher education students with high debt loads
Plus . . .
Your View: GOP represents gridlock, extremism, Trump; posted Oct. 20, 2016
Five of many reasons for voting Democratic:
1. The chief cause of political gridlock in Minnesota and Washington, D.C. is right wing extremism that controls the Republican Party. In politics, you don’t get reasonable compromises with extremists.
Perfect example: Minnesota needs $16.3 billion in additional transportation funds over the next 20 years. Yet no provision for long-range funding gets passed because the Republican House majority opposes transportation tax increases. This outrageous ideological stubbornness is borne out by the Republican Party’s not supporting any gas tax increases since 1967.
2. Next example: The Affordable Care Act is a moderate, compromise program. It includes government mandates like barring insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But it is not a single payer system like Medicare. And it includes free market competition among private insurers in setting premium rates. Yet no Republicans voted for it. And they continually vote to destroy it rather than improve it — even though the ACA has expanded coverage for an additional 20 million people and includes basic guarantees of better health care.
3. Republicans keep pushing an economic policy of promising people getting something for nothing: Tax cuts will put more money in your pocket and the peachy prospects of super economic growth will have you rolling in dough. But, since 1980, what we’ve found from this policy is that the tax cuts favor the rich, income inequality keeps rising, it increases government debt, and the promised prosperity doesn’t materialize .
4. Regarding too many issues, like climate change, Republican extremists cast facts aside, in favor of ideology.
5. Donald Trump and the state of the Republican Party that nominated him.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: GOP gas tax opposition is extreme, costly, Ron Yezzi, posted June 7, 2016
If a Free Press editorial (June 5) can offer insufficient cordial interaction as a major stumbling block to legislative compromise, let me suggest a bigger problem, the GOP’s outrageous position.
Since 1975, Republicans, as a party, have opposed every gas tax increase. 1975 is more than four decades ago. Since then, there have been six gas tax increases — all pushed through because of the DFL. How much transportation revenue would have been lost without those gas tax increases? What would be the condition of transportation in Minnesota now, without those revenues?
For perspective, where would The Free Press be if its prices were forever frozen at 1975 rates and gaining new revenue was replaced with budget cutting?
In current negotiations, when Republicans once again insisted on taking tax increases completely off the table for transportation needs, it both attacked long-term transportation funding and twisted out of shape consideration of the surplus and bonding bills. It should be viewed as a death blow to “collaboration, cooperation and bipartisanship.”
Moreover, the time for merely token tax increases for transportation is past. At this point, It would be too much like allowing wife beaters to continue the beatings by agreeing to skip the practice on Sundays.
Why are Republicans able to get away with these practices for decades, while DFLers take flak for responsible tax increases?
Voters have the power to protect Minnesota’s well-being and prosperity from Republican extremism by preventing Republican majorities in the Legislature. They should use it.
Labeling a real outrage as an “outrage” should not be put down as simply partisanship.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Additonal Comments I added on the Free Press website:
(1)
During recent months, Free Press Editor Joe Spear has put his full heart and mind into advocating a legislative compromise. In trying to be an honest broker, he has been even-handed in chiding both sides to compromise. I admire and respect his effort. But since he has such a high stake in getting a compromise, any compromise, the position can leave a person vulnerable to giving up the most and overlooking the most with respect to an agreement. A shrewd bargainer can take advantage of that. I think House Speaker Kurt Daudt has shown himself to be just that sort of shrewd bargainer.
In my letter, I want readers to know that the Republican Party sits at the bargaining table with an outrageous (extraordinarily extreme, unreasonable) demand. And when Kurt Daudt says there will be no gas tax increase as long as he is Speaker, voters should see this as clear evidence that you don’t want a Republican majority in the Minnesota House. You also don’t want Daudt in any high position.
At some time before the election, as a matter of journalism, I hope that the Free Press will point out how extreme the Republican position is. This is no longer the Party of Al Quie, Arnie Carlson, and Dave Durenberger. And they were all conservatives. While they were in office, I usually disagreed with their conservatism. But they were mild compared to the anti-tax, anti-government Republicans now.
(2)
If you just look at the effects of inflation alone since 1975, it takes $444.72 now to buy what $100 would buy in 1975. And that says nothing about the added deterioration of roads and bridges and the added traffic congestion over those 41 years.
(3)
As the latest example of Republican intransigence on tax increases for transportation, consider Gov. Dayton’s compromise offer made toward the end of this year’s legislative session. As a concession, he agreed to taking $200 million per year from the general fund (a Republican priority that DFLers universally dislike) and he confined the funding of mass transit to a .5% sales tax increase in the Twin Cities Metro area only. Kurt Daudt rejected the proposal immediately because it contained tax increases. For more details, you can go to this report from MPR news:
http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2016/05/dayton-makes-two-offers-on-transportation-funding/
(4)
The GOP no-tax-increase stance “twisted out of shape consideration of the surplus and bonding bills” by loading the bills with transportation projects that squeezed out other needed projects typically in surplus and bonding bills. Because of the 275-word limit, I had to leave out another consequence, the Republican attempt to use transportation needs as an excuse to rob or “starve” the general fund. Their plan can best be described as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in a shell game by anti-government fanatics.
(5) The present transportation funding proposal calls for raising $6 billion over 10 years. But MnDOT projects the 20-year shortfall at $16.8 billion. So 10 years from now, we're going to have to raise even a much larger amount, about $10.8 billion. Republicans are proposing raiding the general fund every year to raise the $6 billion.
(6)
In 1975, 1980, 1983, and 1988, gas tax increase bills became laws because the DFLers controlled the House, the Senate, and the Governor’s Office. In 1981, despite Republican opposition, the DFL controlled House and Senate passed a tax increase bill that contained a gas tax increase. Republican Governor Al Quie refused to sign the bill; but he did not veto it, so that it became law. That ended his political career. In 2008, against Republican Party opposition, 6 House Republicans joined DFLers in overriding Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a gas tax increase bill. They were treated as outcasts by the Party, although two of them did manage to get re-elected as Republicans subsequently.
It's worth noting that, until the Pawlenty veto override in 2008, we went for 20 years with no gas tax increase under Governors Carlson (Republican), Ventura (Independent), and Pawlenty (Republican). With inflation alone, it took $182 In 2008 to buy what you could get for $100 in 1988. And, again, that says nothing about the deterioration of roads and bridges and the added traffic congestion during those years.
(7)
For gas tax increases, I started with 1975 because of my MNDOT source (below):
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/about/pdfs/historychart.pdf
The last time there was a gas tax increase when Republicans held majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate was 1967.
Your View: DFL shouldn't compromise on road funding, posted May 4, 2016
Rep. Clark Johnson’s opinion piece, “Compromise needed on road funding,” nicely lays out transportation issues before the Legislature. And he puts himself on board for a compromise. Clark is a friend and a dedicated, public servant. But I have a problem.
My concern is the assumption that any compromise agreement always represents worthwhile progress. Compromise can carry with it a euphoria of relieved satisfaction even though the agreement accomplishes too little to really get the job done, has seriously harmful effects, allows one or more parties to get away with underhanded methods, and/or sets the stage for re-election results that ensure resumed gridlock in the future.
I think the DFL should reject any compromise that includes a destructive assault on funding state government. In particular, a tax increase should not be turned down by, or held hostage to, robbing (or “starving”) some other needed program, whether we’re considering the general fund or a budget surplus.
House Republicans already successfully used a “taking hostages” stunt this legislative session with respect to extending unemployment benefits on the Iron Range. They should not be allowed to do it twice.
In this particular instance, I think a referendum on a 16-cents gasoline tax increase to meet transportation needs is a fair compromise for both parties. The issue should stand or fall on its own merits.
If Minnesotans have swallowed gas prices climbing up $2 a gallon in market battles over profits, they shouldn’t be choking on a 16 cents per gallon tax increase for transportation needs. If DFLers cannot convince them of that, then there’s a big problem.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: James A. Booker, Players have right to kneel when not in uniform, posted Aug 8, 2018
Football season is upon us. Unfortunately, our enjoyment of the game will probably be marred by the unresolved issue of how players deal with the national anthem. (To stand, to kneel, to stay in the locker room.)
From what I've read, a major point is being missed. Few question the players' constitutional right to express their opinions. However, when they put on a team uniform, their individuality becomes subordinate to the image of their team (which pays them more than most of us can imagine.)
That should give the team management the right to tell them what they can do when wearing that uniform. After the game, let them make whatever statement they like — but in street clothes.
My Reply on the Free Press Website: Ron Yezzi, Posted Aug. 12, 2018
I disagree with the assumption here that, because owners generously decide to pay players huge salaries, they have an unlimited right to determine for themselves the team image—even if it means denying players the constitutional right to express political opinions. There’s a difference between deciding the team’s colors and imposing unsafe or demeaning working conditions on players.
What owners pay players is not merely generosity. It’s compensation for those who actually play the game, take the associated risks, and draw fans to the stadiums and viewers to TVs—all of which produce the revenue compensating the players and providing considerable profits for owners. Moreover, being paid by the owners is not sufficient reason to deny players any say about their working conditions.
Taking a knee during the national anthem is an extremely mild form of protest, it has an extremely short duration, and it does not interfere with playing the game.
Persons can show patriotism by standing at attention with their hand over their hearts for the national anthem.
But persons also can show patriotism by performing the civic duty of calling attention to what they strongly feel is a social injustice that is being ignored. They clearly are protesting unfair police treatment of African-Americans rather than attacking the national anthem or veterans.
“The land of the free, and the home of the brave” and “with liberty and justice for all” are not simply words for recitation; they call for actions that achieve these values.
The vulgar, bullying tactics of Donald Trump on this issue disgrace the meaning of patriotism—as does the continuous cascade of falsehoods emanating from him.
Sorry to disagree with you on this, Jim.
My View: Will our reaction to Trump be rally or rout?; Ron Yezzi; posted March 6, 2018
Let’s consider three statements:
1. I’m working my butt off just trying to make ends meet.
2. Politicians aren’t doing their job when they just produce gridlock instead of compromising.
3. The Republican Party is gravely ill. Will they take the country down with them?
Statement one is frequently true for multiple millions of hard-working Americans. But it tells us nothing about the amount of wisdom in what they’re working for or, more particularly, whether they sacrifice public goods in pursuit of ever increasing private goods.
The United States is a nation of incredible affluence, a technological wonderland of private consumption dedicated to raising living standards of individuals and families. But that dedication becomes self-strangulation if people undermine public goods necessary for private success.
Public goods include education, health care, a welfare safety net, infrastructure, environmental protection, research and administration, law enforcement, a justice system and military defense. These are basics for the right of equal opportunity in a democratic society. And they require both taxes and government regulation to provide them.
So, when people go for the lure of lower taxes “to make ends meet,” they can be selling out their own best interests.
Statement two is superficially true but doesn’t consider the depth of the divide between the current Republican and Democratic parties. The divide is just as deep as the one over slavery that brought on the Civil War.
In both cases, then and now, you have one side passionately committed to preserving an outdated way of life by opposing governmental actions that threaten it. Then, they feared the elimination of slavery; now, they fear big government and change on social issues. Moreover, the “outdatedness” description would have infuriated people then, as much as it does now.
Big government is a needed response to consequences of the bigger everything else: bigger business, greater technological development, more powerful weapons (including guns), more environmental threats, greater affluence, greater population diversity, greater attention to the right of equal opportunity, more interdependencies within the nation and internationally, greater job skill requirements, more rapid communications, more rapid change in personal and social circumstances.
Simple beliefs in a minimally regulated free market as the solution to rising income inequality and in personal responsibility as the solution to everything else don’t hold water in the 21st century.
Personal responsibility starts with being well-informed. And nearly all of us are derelict in that duty to greater or lesser degrees. That failure is what makes the multitudinous falsehoods of Donald Trump such a dangerous threat to our democracy.
Regarding statement three, in historical perspective, Ronald Reagan’s presidency will probably be viewed as the start of the most successful reactionary movement in U.S. history.
The staples of the movement’s goals, from the beginning, have been tax cuts (for everyone, but constantly favoring the rich), supply side economics, massive debt increases, deregulation, privatizing and diminishing the social safety net, stacking courts with extremely conservative jurists, opposing campaign finance reform, opposing personal choice about abortion, restricting freedom of religion, and thwarting the civil rights movement (by opposing affirmative action, racial and ethnic equality, gender equality, and respect for minority sexual orientation).
This reactionary swing to the right has gradually become ever more extreme: with the addition of “no holds barred” gridlock as a political tactic, voter suppression, rejection of environmental protections, climate change denial, embracing white ethnic nationalism, and enormous Republican support for Donald Trump.
Let’s borrow some terms from Arnold Toynbee’s “A Study of History.” In describing the life history of civilizations, he mentioned challenge and response, a time of troubles, rally and rout.
So, a nation faces various times of trouble, or challenges, to which it must make a response. When thriving and healthy, it responds with a rally to overcome its troubles. The U.S. Civil War or the Great Depression and World War II are prime examples. But there can be failed responses, a rout, when the nation heads into irreversible decline.
Ominously, we seem to be on the verge of a rout. Our democratic institutions are in disarray and subject to increasing attacks. Too many citizens are poorly informed and easily misled by falsehoods. There are real problems with too many shortsighted solutions and an overriding desire to solve them by getting “something for nothing.” There is the dizzying distraction of our own enormous affluence. And Trump represents us before the world.
Impeachment can start a rally. But it’ll take much more to overcome our time of troubles, exemplified in the power of this reactionary movement.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato. Additional information by Yezzi on this article can be found at www.mankatofreepress.com.
Additional comments posted on the Free Press website; March 6, 2018:
Comment 1 –
Some readers may notice that this My View does not mention the terms “individualism” and “freedom.” If you’re interested, follow the links at https://sites.google.com/site/rythinkingtoursmt6/
Comment 2 -
Personal responsibility involves two requirements: (1) Acting responsibly; and (2) Being willing to accept praise or blame for the consequences of your own actions. Unfortunately, people tend to focus on (2) but ignore (1). And even with (2), there can be sloppy interpretations of “consequences.”
You can’t observe (1) without being well-informed about all the relevant circumstances present. And you also can’t satisfy (2) without being well-informed about what are all of the relevant “consequences of your own actions.” That’s why “Personal responsibility starts with being well-informed.”
If you want a more careful treatment of “personal responsibility,” go to
https://sites.google.com/site/rythinkingtoursmt6/responsibility
Comment 3 –
A reactionary movement is an attempt to reject social change in order to preserve, or reinstitute, a previously established social or political structure. Reactionaries cling to the past even in the presence of new circumstances and new knowledge. Denial is a favorite reaction of reactionaries to new circumstances or new knowledge.
One might contend that the reactionary movement by the former states of the Confederacy to re-institutionalize racism through suppression of African-Americans from about 1880 to the modern civil rights movement beginning in the 1950s was a more successful reactionary movement. The movement also included the beatification of the Southern Cause against “Northern aggression.” But, as a movement, it only applied to the southern states. There surely was racism elsewhere; but it was not part of this specific movement of the South.
Comment 4 –
There once, in the 1950s through the 1970s, were moderate Republicans—like Dwight Eisenhower, Earl Warren, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and Charles Percy—who would have strongly opposed this reactionary movement. Prominent Minnesota Republicans like Dave Durenburger and Arne Carlson have pretty much abandoned the current Republican party. But the vast majority of active Republicans, and especially the most influential ones, support both the reactionary movement as a whole and, often, even its rightwing extremism.
I admire the never-Trump Republicans who continually speak out publicly. They are repulsed by Trump’s falsehoods, autocratic tendencies, narcissism, incompetence, and boorishness. But, in other respects, they may well support much of the reactionary movement. They are not moderate Republicans in the pre-1980s sense.
Comment 5 – Republican economic policy is a series of scams: General Scam, Fiscal Responsibility Scam, Supply Side Scam, Free Market Scam, Privatization Scam, Private Affluence Scam, Buy-Now-Pay-Later Scam. Explanations are being saved for a later letter to the editor in the Free Press.
General Scam – Republicans have turned the conservative dictum, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” upside down: “Vote for us and you can get something for nothing.”
Comment 6 -
Vast numbers of religious conservatives believe that the right to religious freedom includes the right to impose their religious values on others—even though it takes away the others’ right to religious freedom. The right to religious freedom is about the direction of your own personal life; when you impose your religious values on others, you’re going beyond the right and thereby denying others the right to religious freedom.
Comment 7 –
White ethnic nationalism takes more forms than outspoken white supremacy. It shows itself in antagonism toward persons of color and immigrants speaking foreign (non-English or non-European) languages. Also, in insisting that we are a white, Christian nation.
My View: Climate change critics spread misinformation, Ron Yezzi, posted April 10, 2014 6:39 am
Regarding climate change, are Charles Krauthammer (Free Press, Feb. 23), Bob Jentges (March 20) and Darryl Biehn (March 28) heroic, present-day Galileos battling against the scientific establishment's and mainstream media's suppression of new ideas? Or are they defenders of the past, inclined to deny accumulating facts in the contemporary world that would establish a need for broader government action and regulation?
Let's be clear, first, that primary dependence on fossil fuels for energy needs, minimal governmental regulation, and little concern about pollution have been the traditional attitude of the past. This attitude does not represent new scientific advances. It is the extensive accumulation of scientific evidence about pollution and climate change over the past 50 years that has brought these issues to the forefront.
In attacking scientific consensus on climate change, Krauthammer says, "There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to change."
Here are two different interpretations of science:
Since science is never settled, I can reject any scientific claim I disagree with and accept whatever supports what I want to believe.
Since science almost always deals with probabilities rather than absolute certainties, a reasoning person should do research and act according to the most probable results of presently available scientific knowledge — while also recognizing, and being open to, the possibility that there can be additional, genuinely scientific evidence that will alter the probabilities.
The first is an invitation to quackery. The second is an accurate account of science that both encourages useful application of scientific knowledge and also acknowledges the relevance of scientific innovation. Note that the second includes the term "genuinely scientific evidence" as a counter to pseudoscience. Krauthammer's crime against science consists in his doing nothing to discourage the first interpretation and failing to promote the accuracy of the second.
If you want to get a good sense of the scientific consensus on climate change, go to this NASA website, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. And don't leave without also following that link to a List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations, http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php.
What you want to avoid is being misled by Biehn's March 28 My View. Why? In one attack on claims about a 97 percent scientific consensus about there being significant human-produced climate change, he points to survey results from 3,146 earth scientists that had to be whittled down mysteriously to just 77 of them to manufacture the 97 percent figure.
But he leaves out the most important, relevant fact: "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total)." (1) Seventy five of 77 (97.4 percent) of these climate science specialists agreed that there was significant human-produced climate change.
In a second attack, Biehn endorses outrageously absurd reasoning by David Legates (a scientist critical of human-produced climate change) who insists, "The 97.1 percent consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 percent but 0.3 percent." (2)
Jentges (March 20) seems to want the global warming issue settled by popular interest: "Survey after survey suggests climate change or global warming rates very low among present concerns of the American people." And he wants it to stay that way. So, he is quite willing to oppose human-produced climate change by presenting "proclamations from compelling sources," even though the overwhelming majority of readers have no adequate way of evaluating their soundness.
Moreover, he opposes people trying to form judgments by relying on the overwhelming consensus of the scientists specializing in climate change.
Some problems: When Jentges appeals to the authority of someone being a Greenpeace co-founder in one of the "proclamations," does it mean that he also advocates relying on Greenpeace leaders generally in dealing with environmental issues?
What makes The Global Warming Policy Foundation a "compelling source"? Does Jentges rely on the "unsettledness" of science to promote whatever evidence he supports, regardless of probabilities established through scientific consensus?
All three writers — Krauthammer, Jentges, and Biehn — wittingly or unwittingly, become sources of error and misinformation.
Ron Yezzi
1. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
2. http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf. This quote comes from the second last paragraph. The article by Cook et al. can be found at http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
My View: Columnist misunderstands the nature of courage, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Saturday, June 27, 2015 8:42 pm
In April, columnist Christine Flowers’ crusade to turn back time on recent value shifts in society led her to distort religious freedom in order to justify discrimination. Now (Free Press, June 16), she’s denying a major form of courage.
In writing about various forms of courage (“Jenner undeserving of ESPN courage award”), she wants to strip two individuals, in particular, from any attribution of courage status, Brittany Maynard and Caitlyn Jenner. Maynard is the young woman, with incurable brain cancer and a prognosis of six months to live, who chose to shorten her life through assisted dying. Jenner, of course, is the former Bruce Jenner. Of Maynard, she says, “there is no courage in seeking an end to pain.” Of Jenner, she says, “in a society where we vilify those who support traditional values, it is hardly a courageous act to exhibit your newly acquired identity.”
What is she missing?
Well, one major form of courage consists in standing up against the crowd in order to maintain your own identity. In doing so, persons often become pioneers in changing public attitudes toward what has been previously a matter of legal suppression and discrimination. That is the courage shown by Brittany Maynard and Caitlyn Jenner.
Flowers glorifies the courage of Bruce Jenner as the world’s greatest male athlete at the 1976 Olympic Games. As Bruce Jenner, you have a person who easily could bask in the simple glory of that courage for a lifetime, admired by perhaps hundreds of millions of people — as long as you do not reveal your sense of your own identity. As Caitlyn Jenner, you become a more authentic person, but also one of public controversy, admired by many, but also a creature of degradation through the shocked sensibilities of many traditionalists. Apparently, Flowers recognizes courage in a silent Bruce Jenner, but no courage at all in a public Caitlyn Jenner. In doing so, she seems to be showing her shocked sensibilities rather than a fuller understanding of courage.
Flowers views our society as vilifying “those who support traditional values.” I think it’s more a matter of not letting traditionalists halt worthwhile social change. For a thousand years, gays, lesbians, and transgender persons have been subjected to legal punishments, persecution, discrimination, and vilification. Many traditionalists may feel comfortable with that and want to continue it. But the times, they are a changing.
So, if a baker refuses to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, is that a courageous defense of religious freedom where a person stands up against the crowd in order to maintain one’s own identity? Or is it an attempt to impose one’s religious values on someone else in a way that constitutes discrimination?
In an April 14 Free Press column, Flowers offered a simple solution to the religious freedom problem: “The bottom line is that I don’t have to recognize your gay nuptials if it violates my beliefs, and you don’t have to attend my church.” Unfortunately, she’s not presenting equivalent circumstances. The proper equivalence for religious freedom would be, “I don’t have to participate in your acts of worship or non-worship, and you don’t have to participate in mine.”
Here, then, is the question: In providing a cake for a same-sex marriage, is the baker being forced to participate in a couple’s religious worship? The buying and selling of cakes in a business open to the public is not an act of religious worship. Selling a cake to someone in no way implicates the seller in the buyer’s religious practices or even in accepting the buyer’s religious beliefs. So, the same-sex couple is not imposing their religious values on the baker. By declaring the situation to be a matter of religious practice and refusing to provide the cake however, the baker both goes against the common understanding of business transactions and is imposing the baker’s own religious values on others in a way that is discriminatory. That’s why the baker is not engaging in a courageous defense of religious freedom.
Ron Yezzi, emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Your View: Include social needs in price of government, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Saturday, October 24, 2015 6:00 am
Generously interpreted, the editorial, “Minnesota solid, but could be better” (Oct. 16), is a well-intentioned attempt to show we’re doing well: The cost of government relative to personal income is going down, showing state government is operating more efficiently. And lowering the cost to income ratio more will make us even better off.
A more accurate interpretation though recognizes that any attempt to determine Minnesota’s well-being based simply on a cost to income ratio, independent of public needs and social consequences, is a myopic misuse of statistics.
Example 1: In 2014, the cost of government relative to personal income was 15.8 percent. But eliminating all state gasoline taxes and special fuel taxes last year would have brought that ratio down to 15.4 percent.
By The Free Press measure, we would be better off. But what about the $877,702,000 in lost revenue unavailable for a basic public need — improvement of our roads, bridges, and public transit?
Switching from this “what if” to stark reality, Minnesotans have been lowering the government cost to personal income ratio for decades now by shortchanging public needs related to transportation. That’s why the state faces a $12 billion deficit in revenues needed for transportation over the next 20 years.
Example 2: By doubling public, post-secondary tuition for students and eliminating their tax subsidies, Minnesotans could save about $1.6 billion a year in taxes without hurting the government cost to personal income ratio at all. But what would be the social consequences for students in terms of the affordability of post-secondary education and increased amount of student debt?
I think Minnesota’s economic and social well-being is better served by a more accurate interpretation.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
My View: Why government? Public goods are needed and demanded, By Ron Yezzi, Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:47 am
Why do we need so much government? Put simply, we increasingly find there are needed public goods that only government can provide. Put more weightily, we live in a largely urban, technological society where commitment to democratic principles requires recognition that both the actions and inactions of private entities, groups, and individuals very often have significant local, national, and global consequences for others.
In 1790, the U.S. had 3.9 million people and was 94.9 percent rural; now, we have 310 million, who are 80 percent urban. Back then, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison could envision very limited government with an agrarian populace of relatively self-sufficient, small farmers. But today, we have a huge, interdependent urban population reliant on numerous technological vehicles, appliances, devices, structures, etc.
Even most farming has become a capital-intensive major industry replacing the labor-intensive small family farms of the past. Our society now relies on a complex infrastructure that cannot exist simply through the private choices of individuals; it requires considerable governmental intervention.
After some 30 years of anti-government rhetoric and lowered taxes, serious deterioration of this complex infrastructure has occurred. Here are the grades given by the American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card: Aviation (D), Bridges (C), Dams (D), Drinking Water (D-), Energy (or Electrical Power Grid) (D+), Hazardous Waste (D), Inland Waterways (D-), Levees (D-), Public Parks and Recreation (C-), Rail (C-), Roads (D-), Schools (D), Solid Waste (C+), Transit (D), Waste Water (D-).
In its 2009 Report, the society estimated the shortfall in needed investment over only the next five years at $1.176 trillion. Yet even President Obama’s recent proposal for just $50 billion in additional infrastructure investment faces opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
The engineers though are talking merely about physical facilities. Infrastructure includes much more: like a well-functioning financial system, law enforcement, education, health care, job skills, a living wage, adequate housing, scientific knowledge and research, a safety net for people in trouble.
Without all this infrastructure, a 21st century urban, technological society cannot function well and prosper. Moreover, without it, the fundamental democratic goal of a level playing field of equal opportunity becomes ever more remote and our commitment to democracy for all becomes fraudulent.
Recognizing these infrastructure needs as public goods entails government spending supported by taxes. When anti-government politicians demand small government and back that demand with continual attempts to cut government spending and lower taxes, they may think they’re solving a problem. But washing your hands of a problem is not the same as solving it. The problem is still there; and it is very likely to get worse.
Cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits or repealing The Affordable Care Act doesn’t give people more financial security or greater access to needed health care; instead it puts them at greater risk. The infrastructure needs will not go away by neglect; we must either meet them or let our society deteriorate.
While there’s always conflict in trying to strike a proper balance in the competition between private goods and public goods, let’s recognize there’s also a way of bringing them together. When we talk about our strong tendency to pursue self-interest, let’s differentiate between selfishness and enlightened self-interest.
When it comes to infrastructure as a public good, as a matter of enlightened self-interest, we should recognize that this public good serves our pursuit of private goods in the long run. For example, the sacrifices associated with payroll taxes, required by government for Social Security and Medicare, assist each one of us in avoiding poverty and dealing with illness in our old age.
Our nation faces serious fiscal problems. But we should not be panicked into spending and benefit cuts when they undermine infrastructure needs. Entitlement benefits like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are not wasteful pork barrel projects. The civil engineers’ concerns are not pulp fiction.
There’s always a need for improvement and correction in government programs. Social Security’s long term problems are largely solvable by raising the cap on wages (currently, $113,700 for 2013) subject to tax. Implementation of structures in the Affordable Care Act can hold down increasing costs in Medicare and in health care generally. Once the economy recovers more, tax rates can be raised to Clinton administration levels to sustain deficit reduction and infrastructure investment. Let’s subject proposed spending and benefit cuts to careful consideration, not panicky submission.
Nothing stated here warrants buzz words like “slavery,” “confiscation,” “socialism,” or “nanny state.” It’s just sensible thinking in the contemporary world.
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato. Sources for this article can be found in the online version at www.mankatofreepress.com
Sources:
(1) 1790 figures: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/37_urban_and_rural_population_and_by.html
(2) Current population figures: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html
(3) ASCE report card: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/
(4) ASCE estimated investment shortfall: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/report-cards
(5) Obama infrastructure investment proposal: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/120712SpendingPlan.aspx
Your View: Privately owned assault rifles serve no useful purpose, Ron Yezzi, Mankato, | Posted: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:16 pm
Gary Lindsay’s letter published April 20 opposing an assault weapons ban says, “You are more likely to be killed by someone swinging a hammer than by an ‘assault’ rifle,” since more murders involved blunt instruments than rifles in 2011. But his point is irrelevant.
The problem: Why did Adam Lanza attack Sandy Hook Elementary with an XM15 rather than a hammer? Answer: When you want to rapidly kill and maim as many people as possible, assault weapons are many times more effective than hammers.
Usefulness: Assault rifles are more like grenades and bombs than hammers. While all these can kill, only hammers have numerous peaceful uses. Claiming you need assault weapons for hunting and target shooting is just like saying, “Playing football is impossible if there are rules against hits to the head.” Claiming a legal right to assault weapons so you can overthrow the government whenever you decide it’s a tyranny is both nonsensical as law and impractical. Claiming you need personally-owned assault weapons always handy for protection is untenable — careless reasoning based on an exalted image of perfect security.
Privately-owned assault weapons, unlike hammers, serve no useful social purpose. That’s why limiting assault weapon sales is desirable even if it only prevents one mass shooting tragedy every 10 years.
Lindsay does favor keeping “weapons of any kind out of the hands of the mentally ill.” Substitute “mentally ill and dangerous” here. Then I assume we both support universal background checks on gun sales; better data collection to determine those mentally ill and dangerous; and more resources devoted to aiding those suffering from mental illness, whether they’re dangerous or not.
Your View: Limiting assault weapons sales thwarts wrongdoers, By Ron Yezzi, Mankato, Posted: Friday, April 12, 2013 9:00 pm
State Rep. Tony Cornish's March 30 letter makes an airtight case for banning assault weapons. He says wrongdoers get guns because "They steal, rob, burglarize and borrow them from relatives." Isn't it clear that if assault weapons were illegal, there would be no assault weapons around for them to steal, rob, burglarize or borrow?
For example, there's no special problem with live, military grenades because their possession or sale is illegal. It's hard for wrongdoers to get them. But remove the ban on grenades and make them as available as guns are, and you would create ever-growing problems.
Cornish is also naive in accepting NRA insistence that wrongdoers don't get guns at "private sales and gun shows." According to FBI statistics, from Nov. 30, 1998, through 2012, there were 160,474,702 background check transactions and 987,578 rejections. Why wouldn't some persons pay even a profitable, premium price through either a gun show or a private sale to avoid a background check?
Cornish's support for some background checks, but excluding gun shows and private sales, doesn't make sense either because it's just like saying, "You should lock your doors and windows to keep out unwanted intruders, but you need to leave some of the doors and windows open."
Taking away all presently owned assault weapons or expecting owners to relinquish them voluntarily is probably as unrealistic as trying to solve immigration problems by advocating forced deportation of 11-15 million people or else self-deportation. But limiting assault weapons sales to gradually dry up the market would make it ever more difficult for wrongdoers to get them and lessen others' mistaken belief they need them.
Your View: It makes no sense to oppose gun background checks, By Ron Yezzi, Mankato, Posted: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:00 pm
Opposing universal background checks for gun sales is just like saying, "You should lock your doors and windows to keep out unwanted intruders; but you need to leave some of the doors and windows open." It doesn't make sense.
OK. But what about this: Banning assault weapons is just like saying, "You have a right to defend yourself; but you can't have the weapons you need to do it."
When you recognize that opposing universal background checks doesn't make sense, do you also have to grant that banning assault weapons doesn't make sense either?
Answer: No.
Here are some differences:
1. Universal background checks are not based on what anybody happens to think; instead, they're based on documented information. That's different from allowing everybody to decide for themselves what they need for self-defense.
2. There's no straightforward alternative to the problem universal background checks solves, except taking away everyone's guns--and nobody's seeking that. But there's an existing, straightforward alternative to everyone's having discretion to provide whatever self-protection they want for themselves. It's the law enforcement system, which includes armed policing.
3. The rationale for universal background checks doesn't lead to an absurdity. But claiming a need for assault weapons for self-defense does -- namely, that persons can also have machine guns, grenades, bazookas, IEDs, and tanks while teachers have AR-15s handy.
4. Universal background checks are a mild imposition on people to solve a larger, deeper problem. But assault weapons are a drastic, dangerous measure compared with any usefulness they might have.
We need both universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons.
Your View: Health care reform is hardly a disaster, Ron Yezzi, posted Sept. 12, 2014
Jim Hagedorn calls the Affordable Care Act an unmitigated disaster that he will fight to the political death to repeal. Translation: Here's another Tea Party extremist committed to producing government dysfunction in Washington.
Despite Republican attempts to sabotage the law through misinformation, doomsday warnings, a government shutdown, meaningless votes, and obstruction by Republican state legislatures and governors, the ACA is working to bring about major health care reform.
Check which of the following ACA improvements you think adds up to an "unmitigated disaster":
(1) No more insurance company denials of coverage because of pre-existing conditions;
(2) Young adults now able to stay on parent's insurance until age 26;
(3) Federal and state exchanges that provide both standards for adequate health care and standardized coverage for simpler comparison among plans;
(4) An insurance mandate requiring persons, according to ability to pay, to take responsibility for their fair share of health care costs;
(5) Subsidies for lower income individuals and small business employers to make insurance more affordable;
(6) Insurance company rebates to premium payers if they spend less than 80% of premiums on actual health care.
By the first half-year of open enrollment, 20.8 million persons received insurance under ACA requirements--8 million on exchanges, 5 million outside the exchanges, 4.8 million through Medicaid expansion, and 3 million under 26 adults on parents' plans.
(See this letter on the Free Press website for more, along with information on how the ACA is paid for.)
Instead of harping about problems with initiating any major reform, let's solve problems and give the ACA a fair trial for 7-10 years.
In the meantime, vote for Tim Walz, not Jim Hagedorn.
Ron Yezzi
Comments added on Free Press website:
The quotes from Jim Hagedorn can be found at http://www.jimhagedorn.org/health_care, as of 9/3/14. The enrollment statistics can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/01/almost-13-million-insured-under-aca-admin-says/7735239/
The Kaiser Family Foundation has an excellent, fairly detailed summary of the ACA at http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/summary-of-the-affordable-care-act/.
Below is my own, less detailed summary (taken from various sources):
Benefits of the Affordable Care Act
Coverage for about 30 million people without insurance who will now be able to get coverage
Insurance companies no longer being able to refuse insurance to persons because of pre-existing conditions or to drop their coverage when they are ill (based on technicalities).
No annual or lifetime cap on coverage by insurance companies
Young adults now able to stay on their parents’ insurance policy until age 26
Health insurance exchanges with the opportunity to compare policies based on standardized essential benefits
Lower cost preventive care for seniors, with gradual elimination of the “donut hole” for prescription drugs
Subsidies to help provide employee insurance coverage for employers with fewer than 50 employees
Subsidies to low income persons to enable them to get health insurance
Improvements in the number, distribution, education, and training of health care workers
More financial support for home health care
New rules for eliminating fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid programs
Support for a transition to outcome based payment systems as a replacement for fee for service payments
Support for more coordinated health care
End of higher premium costs for women
Greater health provider transparency
Expansion of Medicaid coverage to include more low income people
Elimination of co-pays for some types of preventive care
How the Affordable Care Act Lowers Costs
Support for a shift toward electronic record keeping, coordinated care through “medical homes,” and outcome based payment methods
Annual rebates from health insurers, if they spend less than 80 % of their income in providing actual health care
Insurance exchange competition among private insurers and expansion of coverage groups
Lower hospital costs, since they don’t have as great a burden for unpaid emergency room services
A Medicare Independent Advisory Board to make recommendations if rising costs get out of hand
A Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute so health care workers have better information about best practices
Pilot program to explore alternatives to tort legislation
More preventive care services for already established programs
The cost benefits of greater preventive care and earlier treatment for newly insured persons
How the Affordable Care Act Is Paid For
Preserving Medicare benefits, while lowering spending costs
Increase in Medicare taxes for high income persons (for joint filers, above $250,000)
A fair share tax penalty for persons who can afford but don’t get health insurance (the insurance mandate)
A tax penalty for large employers (50 or more workers) not providing employee health insurance – with no penalty for small employers (fewer than 50 workers)
10 % tax on tanning salon services
2.3 % tax on medical devices
Raise in the threshold for medical expense deductions (from 7.5 to 10 %)
Tax (starting in 2018) on the value of extremely high valued “cadillac” health insurance plans
Agreed upon cost reductions by hospitals and pharmaceutical companies
Annual fee on health insurance providers
Annual fee on pharmaceutical companies’ branded drugs
Some new limits on Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Savings Accounts
State contributions to cover greater Medicaid costs for recipients newly added because of the ACA (The state contribution for new recipients starts at $ 0. in 2014 and is capped at 10 % by 2020—whereas the state contribution to Medicaid normally ranges from 17 % to 50 %.)
Your View: Writer attacked the Affordable Care Act while accepting what it includes [RY], Ron Yezzi, submitted July 30, 2014
What should readers take away from Patrick Dempsey's July 26 My View?
First, he shows total disdain for the Affordable Care Act.
Secondly, he proposes instead "true" health care reform. This reform includes: (a) eliminating rejection of persons because of pre-existing conditions; (b) not allowing people to be dropped by their insurance companies as long as they are paying their premiums; (c) allowing persons to stay on their parents' health insurance through age 26; (d) an insurance mandate that persons purchase health insurance or pay a fine; (e) exchanges where people can compare insurance plans and get the equivalent of group coverage; (f) financial subsidies to persons who cannot afford health insurance; and (g) alleviation of fears that people will have to give up the health insurance they already have.
Thirdly, lo and behold, while smearing the ACA every way he can, Dempsey advocates the major health care reforms above that only exist because they're already included in the ACA.
Fourthly, you better stop there rather than being caught up in an amateurish tangle of flaws and worse that he adds in the rest of the piece.
Contrary to Dempsey's claims, the ACA is making real progress in health care reform. Let's give the ACA a fair trial for 7-10 years. And if it proves really inadequate, the next reform to consider should be Medicare for All.
In my judgment, his scurrilous and false attacks on the ACA just mirror the unending Republican attempts to sabotage the law.
For more specific comments about Dempsey's proposals, check for this letter on the Free Press website
Your View: ACA is extension of health-care right, Ron Yezzi, posted September 28, 2013
Emergency room treatment, veterans’ health care benefits, Medicaid and Medicare are well-established programs in the United States — each one founded on recognition of a right to health care.
The Affordable Care Act is just an extension of the right to health care based on the knowledge, resources, and needs of contemporary American society. Anyone calling for repeal of the ACA (including Bob Jentges and David Anderson) on the ground that health care is not a right — but rather a product or service just like buying a car, a dinner at a restaurant, or a dance lesson — should be demanding a repeal of all these programs.
According to Anderson’s view, “You are not owed anything — you are entitled to earn it and pay for it like we have for the last 225 years.” What he says about health care applies equally well to education, welfare, food stamps or a lawyer to defend yourself.
This view leads to constructing society on a delusion: Whatever you accomplish or acquire in life is solely due to your own personal, intentional effort. It can inflate egos; it can make some people feel good; it can even inspire some to do great things. But it’s still a delusion.
That’s why the view ought to be rejected. That’s why many serious, successful people recognize an obligation “to give back.” That’s why so many Tea Party people and Ayn Rand fans embracing it are ready to march the country off a cliff. And that’s why there’s a right to health care.
We can encourage personal responsibility and the value of making your best effort without tying them to a delusion.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: ACA criticism offered no viable solutions, Ron Yezzi, posted September 1, 2013 11:34 pm
In arguing for national single payer health care, Dr. Delmer Eggert fails to address this fundamental question: Given the fact that the Affordable Care Act is now law whereas a single payer system is not, is the ACA a huge improvement over what it replaces?
Since the ACA does not meet his single payer ideal, is he really willing to join the right-wing extremist crowd in portraying the ACA as a government boondoggle? His assessment of the ACA is entirely negative. He ignores the ways the ACA reins in private insurance companies by eliminating various practices, by establishing standardized coverages on the insurance exchanges, and by forcing them to direct more revenue to health care.
He ignores the cost control measures the ACA introduces. He ignores the increased revenue the ACA brings to provide health care. He ignores the insurance mandate requirement and the expansion of affordable coverage for tens of millions of Americans. He ignores improvements related to both health care providers and consumers. (I will provide details in a comment on the Free Press website.)
The ACA builds upon the U.S. tradition of employer provided health insurance and free market competition among private insurance companies. I think you have to view the ACA as a final test of that tradition.
There is a long term trend of employers reducing or eliminating health care benefits. They can use the ACA as a convenient excuse to continue that trend by never employing more than 49 workers or not letting employees to put in more than 29 hours per week.
In doing so though, they are hurting their own business when they need more employees and employees working more hours. Furthermore, they will be demonstrating that, regardless of any past merits, employer provided health insurance no longer works in the U.S.
As a goal, the United States needs better, broader health care with lower costs. The tradition of free market competition among private insurers was given a reprieve when the proposed Clinton health care program was dropped in 1994. But private insurers have since failed in meeting that goal. The ACA gives them another reprieve, but under more stringent requirements. If they fail again, they will be demonstrating that, regardless of any past merits, free market competition among private insurers does not meet our need for better, broader health care with lower costs.
While I personally prefer a single payer system, I think we need to acknowledge, first, that the ACA is a huge improvement over what it replaces. And secondly, we should work to make the ACA succeed.
If employers and private insurers show that they’re not up to their tasks under the ACA, then their actions establish all the more the need for a different system. By strongly attacking this government program, it seems to me that you’re just adding fuel to the fires being set by anti-government ideologues bent on sabotaging the ACA.
Ron Yezzi
My View: ACA benefits ignored by writer, The Mankato Free Press, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:13 pm
Bob Jentges’ May 8 My View strikes me as being like a football coach trying to frighten players into quitting when the game has barely begun. His wholly negative piece reads like a catalog of scare tactics.
The Affordable Care Act is complicated because health care (18 percent of the economy) is complicated, whether in the public or private sector. Decisions are necessary that set standards, establish fees, include periodic re-evaluation, and provide infrastructure for every prescription drug, medical procedure, health care service, medical device, and item of medical or health care information occurring in homes, doctor’s offices, clinics or hospitals and nursing homes.
The ACA presents problems to overcome. But let’s remember: We’re the U.S.A. We established Social Security and Medicare, built the interstate highway system, and landed astronauts on the moon.
Here are 26 reasons for supporting the ACA that Jentges ignored:
Benefits:
1. Coverage for about 30 million people without insurance who will now be able to get coverage (30 million more reasons?)
2. Insurance companies no longer being able to refuse insurance to persons because of pre-existing conditions or to drop their coverage when they are ill (based on technicalities).
3. No annual or lifetime cap on coverage by insurance companies.
4. Young adults now able to stay on their parents’ insurance policy until age 26.
5. Health insurance exchanges with the opportunity to compare policies based on standardized essential benefits.
6. Lower cost preventive care for seniors, with gradual elimination of the “doughnut hole” for prescription drugs.
7. Subsidies to help provide employee insurance coverage for employers with fewer than 50 employees.
8. Subsidies to low income persons to enable them to get health insurance.
9. Improvements in the number, distribution, education, and training of health care workers.
10. More financial support for home health care.
11. New rules for eliminating fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
12. Support for a transition to outcome based payment systems as a replacement for fee for service payments.
13. Support for more coordinated health care.
14. End of higher premium costs for women.
15. Greater health provider transparency.
16. Expansion of Medicaid coverage to include more low-income people.
17. Elimination of co-pays for some types of preventive care.
Cost containment:
18. Support for a shift toward electronic record keeping, coordinated care through “medical homes,” and outcome based payment methods.
19. Annual rebates from health insurers, if they spend less than 80 % of their income in providing actual health care.
20. Insurance exchange competition among private insurers and expansion of coverage groups.
21. Lower hospital costs, since they don’t have as great a burden for unpaid emergency room services.
22. A Medicare Independent Advisory Board to make recommendations if rising costs get out of hand.
23. A patient-centered outcomes research institute so health care workers have better information about best practices
24. Pilot program to explore alternatives to tort legislation.
25. More preventive care services for already established programs.
26. The cost benefits of greater preventive care and earlier treatment for newly insured persons.
Don’t let Jentges being miffed about “21 new taxes” distract us from the fact that there’s a way of paying for the ACA. Perhaps he would prefer a simpler taxing system like Medicare for All. But we weren’t able to get that.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
My View: Hobby Lobby ruling errs on freedom issue, Ron Yezzi, posted July 16, 2014
The July 6 Free Press editorial on the Hobby Lobby case strikes me as no worse than the terribly perverse activism of five Supreme Court justices.
First, the editorial accepts the perverse thinking that, when corporations are defined as persons for specific commercial purposes, it follows that they possess all the same rights as all natural persons. In particular, this means they have the right to religious freedom just as much as any other person.
In justification, the Court majority argues that, since a corporation is an association of persons, any legal rights possessed by a corporation are really a way of protecting the rights of the individual persons in the association.(1)
In other words, it's not really treating the corporation as a person; giving it person status is just a token for the rights of individuals in the corporation. Aside from the confusion this causes, the argument might make some sense as long as those corporate rights are confined merely to the specific commercial purposes a corporate association serves. But when the Court majority extends these corporate rights to include general rights not related to commercial purposes, such as freedom of religion, they are well beyond the scope of any reasonable interpretation of corporate personhood.(2)
Secondly, The Free Press argument that the Court majority opinion was demanded by existing law, including "the law of unintended consequences," is faulty. It makes the fundamental mistake of elevating a fact for consideration into a legal principle. That laws often have unintended consequences is a fact for consideration. It does not follow, as a legal principle, that all unintended consequences of a law are legal.(3)
According to The Free Press, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, passed by Congress in 1993) so broadened freedom of religion that the Supreme Court had to exempt Hobby Lobby from the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. The ruling was just an unintended consequence demanded by the RFRA.
What The Free Press (and the Court majority) ignore however is the fundamental way the Hobby Lobby case differs from previous cases leading to the RFRA. In previous cases, the exercise of religious freedom applied only to acts of the individuals themselves without being related to effects on other people — for example, an Amish person exercising freedom of religion by not attending school until age 16 or two members of the Native American church being denied unemployment benefits after being fired for exercising their freedom of religion by taking peyote for sacramental purposes.(4)
Nothing prevented owners of Hobby Lobby from exercising their freedom of religion by not using contraceptives and by stating publicly their religious objections to some contraceptives. What they claimed though, as their own religious freedom, is a right to set a religious policy that affects their 13,000 employees.
Preventing them from doing that does not abridge their right to religious freedom, because the right does not allow you to impose your religious beliefs on others in a way that infringes on their own right to religious freedom. Nothing related to the RFRA in any way demanded the extension of religious freedom the Court majority granted Hobby.
Here are five instances of perverse judicial activism by which the Court majority established new legal precedents in the Hobby Lobby case:
A. They turned an accommodation (not legally required) for non-profit, specifically religious organizations by Health and Human Services into a legal mandate that applies to all closely held non-profit and for-profit corporations;
B. They continued their attempt to turn the definition of a corporation as a person for specific commercial purposes into a more general person (like a natural person) with a newly formed right to religious freedom;
C. They legitimized a new right to religious freedom that allows employers in a simply commercial relationship with employees to impose their religious values on employees, without consideration for the employees' own rights to religious freedom;
D. They assert, without providing strict guidelines, that this is a narrow decision applying only to Hobby Lobby, while opening a wide door to all sorts of new religious objections relating to commercial enterprises.
E. They hold that almost any objection on religious grounds must be given an exemption to laws, provided that it is possible for government to remedy (financially) any ill effects of the exemption on other people, regardless of any practical difficulties in the way of providing the remedy.(5)
Ron Yezzi, now emeritus professor of philosophy at Minnesota State University, taught courses in social and political philosophy. He lives in Mankato.
Notes on Free Press website:
(1) From Justice Alito's majority opinion: "An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people." For a full text of the opinion, with dissents, go to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
(2) If Hobby Lobby wants to declare various religious beliefs as part of its corporate mission, it can do so. But this declaration is not part of the legal understanding of what establishes a business corporation as a legal entity.
(3) If you were looking for a legal principle, it might more likely be: Since courts often use original intent to determine the meaning of a law, any actions leading to unintended consequence, presumably, should be illegal because they are contrary to the intent of the law. I would confine unintended consequences to merely being a fact for consideration.
(4) See Justice Alito's own account of the case history leading to passage of the RFRA.
(5) In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court majority ruled that any negative consequences for employees of allowing owners of Hobby Lobby to refuse to provide insurance for some contraceptives could be remedied by government taking steps on its own to guarantee the coverage. As long as it is possible for government to raise money to remedy ill effects on others, there is no reason for government to refuse religious exemptions even though they affect others. And, if you ignore practical difficulties, it's always in the realm of possibility that the government can raise money. That's where this new precedent sets the stage for future problems as others follow Hobby Lobby's lead.
Your View: Activists aim to destroy Planned Parenthood, by Ron Yezzi, Posted: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:00 am
Anti-abortion activists are trying to destroy Planned Parenthood in order to take away a woman’s opportunity to exercise her legal right to choose an abortion. Those distorting videos and attempts to defund Planned Parenthood provide excellent case studies illustrating how fanatical devotion to a bad cause leads people to use reprehensible tactics to gain their goal.
Of these misleading, heavily edited videos made public by the “Center for Medical Progress,” Kim Spears (Free Press, Aug. 12) says anyone distrustful of them can watch the full, unedited versions. Problem: That involves about 12 hours of viewing.
Even without full versions, a perceptive person should recognize manipulation in the edited versions simply from the captions, additional commentary, and music. A caption: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts. Then we find this from Mr. Spears, “I find it disturbing to think of babies that could survive outside of the womb being pulled from that womb and dissected so that their organs might be sold.”
I find it disturbing that he should get and pass on this terribly false impression. The facts: (a) Abortions are performed because of the personal reasons the woman has for legally choosing an abortion; (b) Her choice to donate fetal tissue for worthwhile medical research is an additional decision; (c) Fetal tissue for medical research is acquired through abortions at an earlier stage of pregnancy than viability; and (d) Planned Parenthood, quite legally, tries to cover the costs of providing the fetal tissue, not to make a profit.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: State GOP positions simplistic and harmful, Ron Yezzi, posted Oct. 24, 2014
Given candidates' positions, here's my version of the Republican platform this fall:
(1) Go back to the market-driven health care where so many people died, suffered, and/or went bankrupt because they were denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition; and where the number of uninsured topped 49 million and kept rising every year.
(2) Let anyone replace Minnesota's high standards of health care coverage with coverage by the state having the worst standards (a.k.a. allowing insurance across state lines).
(3) Avoid regulations to deal with problems raised by farm runoff polluting the state's waters.
(4) Never raise taxes to deal with ever-increasing deterioration of Minnesota's transportation infrastructure.
(5) Repeal the DFL-sponsored tax increase on wealthy persons so they can once again pay lower effective tax rates than middle-class Minnesotans.
(6) Save money by making students pay more of the costs of higher education.
(7) Have the state and federal government wash their hands of any concern for needs and standards in education, leaving everything up to local control.
(8) Improve the business climate by eliminating the minimum wage, corporate taxes, higher income taxes on the wealthy, most pollution standards, and most financial regulations.
What stands out most is always promoting the easy way out. We don't need government spending, taxes, regulations, or investment in the future. The magic of the free market and every individual's instant expertise on everything will solve all problems.
If you're willing to face a harder, wiser reality, you'll vote for Mark Dayton, Al Franken, Tim Walz, Clark Johnson, and Jack Considine.
Ron Yezzi
My View: ACA deceit claims skew issue, Ron Yezzi, posted November 12, 2013 5:14 am
Here are two statements:
(1) The ACA does not require that you give up the insurance you have now.
(2) Insurance companies and employers will never be able to make any decisions that would affect the insurance coverage you have now.
President Obama said, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”
Those attacking the President for lying need to show that he clearly meant both (1) and (2). The evidence for (1) is clear, namely, the ACA’s grandfather clause. But the evidence that he meant (2) is non-existent. I would even say the claim that he was promising (2) is ridiculous. In context, Obama was talking about what government would do (or not do), not about what employers and insurance companies could do.
According to the Cigna Insurance website, “Plans remain grandfathered indefinitely unless companies:
Significantly reduce benefits
Increase costs to their employees, or
Reduce how much the employer pays toward benefits.”
There is another way the grandfather status disappears, namely, if employers or insurance companies decide to substitute new insurance plans for grandfathered ones — since new plans must conform to the new, required minimum standards of the ACA. As the Blue Cross website puts it, “Carriers [companies selling insurance] have the choice whether or not to continue grandfathered plans — a decision not to grandfather would mean that a plan had been modified to comply with all regulations applying to post-March 23, 2010 plans.”
If persons in the individual insurance market are receiving notices about these substitutions, this occurs because of the insurance company’s choice, not a governmental demand.
Since employers and insurance companies continually decide to make changes in insurance plans, the grandfathered plans probably will disappear over time. But the net result should be better health insurance coverage at a more affordable cost for the vast majority of people.
Can the President be accused of “bait and switch” tactics, since he knew about the likely disappearance of grandfathered plans over time?
First, in a classic bait and switch operation, the consumer gets fleeced for the benefit of the perpetrator. By contrast, the ACA works to provide affordable, better health care for consumers.
Secondly, all along, the president has faced a special problem with the ACA: Opponents are trying almost any dirty trick to destroy it. It’s not just House Republicans trying to defund the ACA by forcing the government shutdown and most of them voting to allow a debt default.
They’ve used misinformation to spread as much fear as possible: death panels will be killing grandma, Medicare benefits are being cut, it’s a government takeover of health care; it’s socialism; government bureaucrats will stand between you and your doctor; premiums will skyrocket; the government takeover will force you to lose the health insurance you have now; deficits will explode and bankrupt the country; you’ll lose your job or be cut back to part time status; the ACA’s unconstitutional; the individual mandate destroys freedom. They prey upon people’s frequent fear of change.
People need reassurance. That’s why President Obama made clear that the government was not forcing elimination of health plans people already had. But another reality has to be recognized: Generally, there’s no way of stopping change, although you can make it better or worse. Over recent decades, the changes in health care have made coverage and affordability worse for people not on Medicare, Medicaid, or VA coverage. Rather than let this trend of change continue, the ACA works to make coverage and affordability better. So the basic issue is change for the better vs. continuing change for the worse, not a bait and switch game.
Reality also requires careful thought about personal stories. For example, a 63-year old woman was upset because part of her premiums under the ACA would go for maternity coverage she doesn’t need. Is she equally upset that part of the premiums of a 30-year old would go for coverage of her osteoporosis, if she develops it?
What about the ACA requirement that women cannot be charged higher premiums because of their gender? Let’s remind ourselves of this basic insurance principle: Enough money is available for people who need it if there is a large enough pool of people facing a variety of risks, who pay premiums even though the risks may never materialize.
Government programs like everything else are seldom, if ever, perfect enough to benefit every single person coming under them. But that’s not sufficient reason to do away with government programs and everything else.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Undemocratic actions demean Lincoln's vision, Ron Yezzi, posted November 6, 2013 5:14 am
Why am I more impressed with Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people” than Al DeKruif’s insistence in a Your View published Oct. 31 that the United States cannot be described as a democracy?
Answer: Rather than playing De Kruif’s quirky definition game, I’m more concerned with undemocratic practices that demean Lincoln’s vision.
Like the following:
1. House Republicans shutting down the government in an effort to negate election results and to defund a law passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the president, and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court;
2. Republican House Speaker John Boehner trying to extort political concessions by periodically threatening or causing political and financial crises;
3. The Republican minority in the Senate systematically using the filibuster rule to block legislation and appointments supported by the Democrat majority;
4. Gerrymandering congressional districts whereby, for example, votes for Democratic candidates in House elections in Pennsylvania in 2012 outnumbered votes for Republicans by 83,000, yet Democrats ended up with only 5 of the 18 House seats;
5. Republican proposals that claim to serve the interests of all the people by promoting and favoring the financial interests of the upper 1 percent;
6. Voter suppression techniques whereby Republican majorities in state legislatures put up barriers to citizens exercising their right to vote;
7. Voter suppression techniques whereby politicians try to get citizens so disgusted with politics and government that they don’t turn out to vote and/or don’t take time to sort out issues carefully;
8. Equating money with free speech so that the more money you have, the more free speech and political influence you have.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Right-wing extremists mislead, Ron Yezzi, posted September 4, 2013 6:14 am
I’ve disagreed with some stances taken by Republicans Kelly Gage, Glen Taylor (in his politician days), Arne Carlson, and Dave Durenberger.
But I would never accuse them of trying to prey on people’s ignorance. Right-wing Republican extremists warrant different treatment.
So, let’s prick the Blue Earth County Republican chair’s hot air balloon, whose letter was recently published.
1. It’s not name calling when you present 10 specific reasons identifying Al DeKruif as a right-wing Republican extremist.
2. Extremists can’t be trusted because they make so many misleading statements. I’ve written three letters and two website comments pointing out in detail how DeKruif misleads people.
3. In all the cases cited by DeKruif, Republicans have charged that President Obama, the White House staff, and/or leaders of his administration have originated and directed illicit activities and/or a massive cover up to deceive the American people. But the evidence refutes these charges.
That’s why they’re phony scandals.
Democrats (including Congressman Tim Walz) do not oppose the House or Senate investigating what happened to try to avoid future mistakes.
4. If Benghazi is such a massive issue for Republicans, what should we say about 9/11 and the Iraq War?
Over many submissions, I (and others) provide numerous detailed reasons and evidence to explain why government action and taxes are necessary to meet 21st century needs. Instead of any countering reasons and evidence, we get ludicrous charges like “his wanting high taxes to supplement his high professor salary and protection of generous pension and benefit packages.”
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Right-wing DeKruif touts scandals not solutions, Ron Yezzi, posted August 13, 2013
Since the Vietnam War era, many Democrats have warned against potential abuse of government power under the guise of national security. But that’s very different from Al DeKruif (Free Press, Aug. 8) trumpeting phony scandals to satisfy, as I see it, his ambition to join extreme right-wing Republicans in Congress.
Since political contributions are not tax deductible, why doesn’t he demand stricter rules to prevent tax exemptions for groups engaging in political campaigning?
Instead of blowing hot air about Benghazi, why isn’t he criticizing gridlock produced when the House Republican majority passes extreme bills that have no chance of becoming law?
Why isn’t he criticizing gridlock produced when House Republicans reject bipartisan compromises worked out in the Senate?
Why isn’t Dekruif criticizing their Hastert Rule by which House Republicans produce gridlock and minority rule by not bringing up a bill for a vote unless a majority of their caucus supports it?
Why isn’t Dekruif criticizing Republican extremists in the House and Senate trying to shut down the government unless Obamacare is defunded?
Why isn’t he criticizing those Republicans willing to sacrifice the nation’s credit rating and economic recovery by holding a debt ceiling increase hostage to their ideological demand for deep spending cuts and no tax increases?
Why isn’t Dekruif criticizing Republicans blocking jobs bills and infrastructure improvements needed for greater economic recovery from the Great Recession?
Why isn’t he criticizing the Republican fact-deniers opposing climate change measures and pretending the $760 billion stimulus package contributed nothing to the economic recovery?
Why isn’t he retracting the steady stream of misleading statements in his Free Press articles?
Answer to these questions: Dekruif’s a right-wing Republican extremist.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: DeKruif examples skewed ACA view, Ron Yezzi, posted July 25, 2013
In opposing the Affordable Care Act, Al DeKruif says in his letter published July 13, a 63-year-old couple with income of $62,000 will pay annual insurance premiums of $5,892. But with income of $63,000, their annual premiums jump to $20,000-plus.
Seems scary, doesn’t it? But is DeKruif engaging in political trickery?
Bottom line: This couple is better off with the ACA than without it. DeKruif says nothing about their costs without the ACA, and without benefits like ending rejections due to pre-existing conditions. With the ACA, they pay less in premiums with income under $62,000 and are not worse off than they were before the ACA with income over $63,000.
If DeKruif’s example was a 45-year-old couple, the premiums would be $5,892 annually at $62,000 income, and $9,984 at $63,000, an increase of only $4,092 rather than the $14,000-plus for the 63 year olds. He’s just selecting an extreme example to make the ACA look bad.
In two years, the $63,000 63-year-olds would get Medicare, paying nowhere near $20,000-plus for insurance. But DeKruif never mentions this.
For incomes from $63,000 to $99,000,000, the 63-year-old couple would pay exactly the same monthly premiums adding up to $20,412 annually. From this whole range, why did DeKruif select $63,000? Gradually diminishing subsidies must reach some end point where people are expected to have enough income to pay for their insurance without subsidies. With the endpoint set at $62,000, DeKruif pounces on $63,000.
If the endpoint were $63,000, he would pounce on $64,000, anything to distract people from the bottom line mentioned above.
Message: Try the MNsure.org calculator and don’t ever vote for DeKruif.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Math is twisted on farm bill analysis, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:14 am
Bob Jentges’ “objective analysis” (July 9) trying to show Democrats killed the farm bill should impress nobody.
He says, “The vote on the [House] farm bill was 195 for and 234 against. The Republican vote against was 62; the Democrat vote against was 172. Only 24 Democrats voted for passage of the farm bill.”
Let’s state this differently. 171 Republicans voted for the House bill and 172 Democrats voted against it. That’s an almost even split. So what tipped the balance so that the bill failed, 195 to 234? Because 62 other Republicans voted against their own Party’s bill. 62 + 172 = 234.
If House Republicans had brought up the compromise Senate farm bill (passed with a 66-27 bipartisan vote), it would have had overwhelming Democratic support. But, first, Republicans proposed cutting food stamps for about two million more people; then they added provisions for drug testing; and then they added work rules.
There’s need for compromise. But there’s a difference between voting for a compromise and voting for a compromise of a compromise of a compromise of a compromise — each additional one going in one direction, in this case, hitting further on low income people.
And why did those 62 other Republicans vote against the House bill? Not from concern for low income people. Instead, they demanded deeper cuts.
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Your View: DeKruif business argument doesn't add up, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Sunday, July 7, 2013 3:13 am
Does Al Dekruif (Free Press, June. 19) deserve a spanking?
Dekruif says Minnesota’s high taxes will drive business and the rich away. But Minnesota’s state-local taxes (from 1977-2010) have been in the top 10 among states for all but 8 of these years. If Dekruif were right, businesses and the rich would already be gone.
What does the new income tax increase on wealthy Minnesotans mean for couples with personal income of $350,000?
For Dekruif, it means “increasing the marginal tax rate by approximately 25 percent,” and, presumably, they can have no other incentives to keep themselves and their business in Minnesota.
For the DFL, it means a tax increase of 2 percent , from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on their income over $250,000, that is, $2,000 (probably less than the cost of their refrigerator), and it will help build a better Minnesota.
Why does Dekruif resort to a percentage trick and ignore what goes into producing Minnesota’s high quality of life?
While he piously expresses concern for effects of tobacco tax increases on the poor, Dekruif ignores the Minnesota Department of Revenue study showing, for 2010, the effective tax rate (total of all state taxes) for the lower 60 percent in income ranged from 11.5 – 14.2 percent, whereas the effective rate for the upper 20 percent ranged from just 9.3 – 10.2 percent. The DFL addressed this imbalance by raising the income tax rate on wealthy Minnesotans.
Dekruif complains about state subsidies to large corporations like 3M and Mayo Clinic but says nothing about Republicans blocking an $800 million bonding bill that would have supported infrastructure projects throughout Minnesota.
These points are enough to answer, “Yes.”
Ron Yezzi
Mankato
Added notes on Free Press website:
(1) Minnesota’s tax ranking among the states comes from the Tax Foundation:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/minnesotas-state-and-local-tax-burden-1977-2010
Oddly enough, this is an anti-tax group that doesn’t realize how its own chart shows that a high tax state can manage quite well without driving out businesses and the rich. Note also that, even for years Minnesota was not in the top 10, it still was never lower than 16th.
(2) For the Minnesota Department of Revenue Tax Incidence Study, go to:
http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/research_reports/2013_tax_incidence_study_links.pdf
and scroll down to the Table of Contents and click on 2010 Effective Tax Rates under Income Deciles.
You can find a similar pattern for 2007 and 2009 Tax Incidence Studies done during the Pawlenty administration by going to:
http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/Pages/Tax_Incidence_Studies.aspx
MY VIEW: Religious beliefs can be false: good deeds true, Ron Yezzi, posted Feb. 14, 2015
President Obama’s call for greater religious humility at the Feb. 5 National Prayer Breakfast raises questions about religion’s relation to truth and falsity, in particular, convictions about certainty of religious beliefs.
Most of the goods that religious persons accomplish would still be goods even if their religious beliefs are false. For example, missionary-doctors treating Ebola patients may act out of religious beliefs that they are doing God’s will and will enjoy eternal life with God. But, even if their religious beliefs are false, treating Ebola patients is still a real good.
Someone may claim there cannot be any real good without God and religion. But I don’t think that claim sits well with common experience. Non-believers, clearly, can recognize many of the same real values that many believers have. You do not have to be a believer to think that murder is wrong or that treating Ebola patients is good. And, given the different, often conflicting interpretations of God and religion that have persisted over thousands of years, the claim eventually will require a unilateral declaration that the “real good” is based upon one’s own particular interpretation of God and religion.
Looking more deeply, the claim there cannot be any real good without God and religion would treat fairly obvious sources of value, that people commonly apply, as a meaningless waste of time. I mean values engendered by the following: compassion for the sufferings of others; the rational recognition of reciprocity, whereby you realize that, for example, if you don’t want to be murdered or robbed, then you had better not go around murdering and robbing others; recognition of the value of human life; the value in seeking the greatest good for the greatest number; the value in achieving self-realization. All these sources, incidentally, can be used to show how treating Ebola patients is a real good.
Of evils produced by religion, let me just mention two general, potential sources, namely, attaching a high degree of probability (or even objective certainty) to religious beliefs when the evidence doesn’t warrant it or claiming your right to personal religious freedom allows you to impose your religious values on others.
Both these sources can lead to false claims. The history of holy wars and persecution provides a glaring example.
Persons, from childhood through adulthood, often regard statements about divine matters like God’s nature, God’s will and actions, God’s communications with humans, and an immortal soul to be based upon evidence comparable with, and even superior to, evidence involved in successfully turning a light switch on and off, learning geography, being able to write computer code, or accepting the movement of the earth and evolution. Yet these statements of religious beliefs rest on more questionable evidence.
Perhaps religious persons would benefit from claiming enough evidence to show the plausibility of a religious belief, what the philosopher William James referred to as a reasonable “maybe.” And persons may be satisfied with basing their lives on religious plausibility. But there still needs to be a proviso: You can act based upon religious plausibility as long as you do not harm others and do not impose your religious beliefs on them.
The questionable evidence in divine matters is a major reason why some (perhaps many) religious leaders say that religion is a matter of faith rather than reason. An act of faith can circumvent the evidence problem. That faith may produce a sense of subjective certitude about one’s religious beliefs.
Moreover, a person should be entitled to base one’s life on an act of faith. Since subjective certitude is not the same as objective certainty and the proviso is necessary, appeals to faith do not do more than lead us back to the importance of the right to freedom of religion.
Generally, religion can make people better persons. Religion is often the means whereby persons consciously organize their moral efforts in life. Religion often provides “a sense of place” that enhances people’s ability to cope with life. The personal satisfaction and tolerance engendered by allowing freedom of religion makes that freedom a fundamental value. Let’s also add the value of humility.
Many persons may be insulted by claims their religious beliefs can be false. I think though it’s a mistake to hold that only other persons’ religious beliefs can be false
Ron Yezzi
My View: Freedom issue skewed in birth control case, Ron Yezzi, posted February 27, 2014 5:14 am
Columnist Kathleen Parker’s recent op-ed on religious liberty (Free Press, Feb. 12) turns the 1st Amendment upside down. Instead of its guaranteeing everyone’s freedom of religion, she wants it to allow some persons, in the name of religious freedom, to impose their values on other people.
Specifically, she thinks employers, as an expression of their religious freedom, should be able, on religious grounds, to restrict their employees’ opportunity to receive insurance coverage for contraceptives. The employers at the center of this presently are the Catholic Church and Hobby Lobby. They do not want to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandate for contraceptive coverage.
The courts have already made clear a relevant distinction here. On religious grounds, a person can refuse life-saving medical treatment for oneself. But parents cannot, claiming freedom of religion, refuse life-saving treatment for their child. That would be using their religious freedom to impose their values on someone else.
So, has the distinction led to courts also banning parents from saying a prayer before supper? No, first, because parents are granted considerable leeway in raising their children. Secondly, and more importantly, whereas provision or absence of life-saving treatment has serious, frequently irreversible consequences, the prayer has relatively far less consequences and the issue is easily reversible if the child so decides when grown up.
If this restriction on religious freedom can hold even within the family, shouldn’t it hold all the more strongly in much looser social relationships, such as employment? Isn’t it also clear that use or non-use of contraceptives, like provision or absence of life-saving treatment, has serious, frequently irreversible consequences?
The Catholic Church and Hobby Lobby can defend their position with any of the following faulty arguments: (1) Their religious freedom is an absolute right regardless of the consequences for other people; (2) A Catholic school or hospital and Hobby Lobby are not imposing their religious values on others because affected employees are free to find employment elsewhere; (3) The insurance mandate forces them to support and to condone actions contrary to their religious beliefs, thereby violating their religious freedom; (4) Employers refusing insurance coverage for contraceptives does not place a significant burden on anyone else, because contraceptives are quite inexpensive and widely available elsewhere.
Why are these faulty arguments?
About (1): Its problems should be obvious.
About (2): This is just like saying you can refuse to hire a colored person in your business or refuse to serve a colored person in your restaurant because they can always go somewhere else. That “going somewhere else” option as an expression of one’s own religious freedom confers secondary status on other persons’ beliefs about religion and harms them economically, socially and personally.
About (3): Employers providing insurance coverage that includes contraceptives does not show support for, or condonance of, how employees use their insurance.
About (4): One of the most effective ways of providing preventative health care focuses on including preventative measures within routine health care.
Since use of contraceptives is actually the chosen way of preventing unplanned pregnancies for most people, it makes good sense then to include them within routine insurance coverage.
If you really believe in the right to religious freedom, you need also to be tolerant enough to grant the right to others, even when their beliefs on religion are contrary to your own. You shouldn’t insist on the power to impose your religious views on others.
Aside from a right, there is the question of respecting the sensitivities of religious institutions, for example, the Catholic Church — but not Hobby Lobby.
It seems to me that the willingness to have the insurance company cover the costs of contraceptive coverage for employees, without requiring a Catholic hospital or school to pay for it, more than adequately meets concerns about sensitivity.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Tax increases needed for transportation, Ron Yezzi, posted April 4, 2015
Finding ways of convincing gullible people they can get something for nothing brings a smile of agreement from too many Republicans these days.
Consider Neil Breitbarth's March 22 letter. Supporting a Republican push to return the expected Minnesota budget surplus to taxpayers, he offers this analogy. "If you take your car in for repairs and are asked to pay $1,000 up front, they do the work and it only costs $650, you would get $350 back."
Here's a more accurate analogy: For $1,500, you can get your car into really good condition; but, for $1,000, you can at least get the car into passable running condition for now, although further serious problems will develop later. You decide to spend only $650 on repairs. You then happen to get an extra $350. Being a Republican, you say, "Now that all the car problems are taken care of, I have a cool $350 to spend on whatever I want."
For many years now, the Republican solution to problems consists in opposing all tax increases (a.k.a. continually digging us into a deeper hole).
For example, the 2008 gas tax increase was clearly inadequate to deal with our transportation needs even then. That's why we're struggling with the problem again now. Yet even that modest tax increase was passed over the kicking and screaming objections of Gov. Tim Pawlenty and nearly all the Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature. Choose any issue and you get the same reaction.
I'm sure Republican leaders are smiling about their latest proposal to raise $7 billion for transportation over the next decade, without raising taxes, of course.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Low tax mantra harms middle class, Ron Yezzi, posted June 8, 2014
How does the Republican Party thrive on rising income inequality? Answer: The more financially squeezed the middle class feels, the more susceptible they are to the Republican promise of lower taxes.
This proportion benefits Republicans at election time; but it squeezes the middle class all the more. We cannot satisfy aspirations of a democratic society committed to equal opportunity in contemporary times without considerable government spending (investment) to foster a more level playing field. When Republicans succeed in crippling government with their lower taxes message, they tilt the playing field to favor the wealthy even more and the middle class falls further behind. The success of their message since the advent of the Reagan administration is a major cause of the rising income inequality that troubles us now.
A simple example: Consider Social Security, one of the most successful anti-poverty measures by government in U.S. history. Republicans commonly preach that Social Security is heading toward bankruptcy; but they refuse to raise the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes ($117,000 a year currently). They would rather push the system toward bankruptcy than raise taxes on higher income persons. If they succeed, the wealthy will not suffer; it's the less than wealthy who will bear the brunt of their anti-tax policies.
I could cite numerous other examples. But the basic point will remain the same: As long as the middle class buys into the Republican pledge of lower taxes and less government, they will have fewer and fewer opportunities to maintain themselves as middle class.
While kicking yourself in the teeth is nearly impossible, you can achieve the mental equivalent by simply falling for Republican rhetoric.
Ron Yezzi
Your View: Anti-tax attitudes hurt on roads, other needs, Ron Yezzi, Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:14 am
John Hollerich (In Response, July 11) opposes “tax and spend nonsense,” especially business taxes.
To understand where his anti-tax attitude leads, consider transportation. Since 1988, there was no increase in Minnesota’s gasoline tax until 2008, when DFLers along with four Republicans passed a modest gas tax increase by overriding Gov. Pawlenty’s veto.
But even then, MnDOT’s 2013 20-year projection presents a dire picture of Minnesota’s transportation prospects: $30 billion in needs (not including Highway 14 completion), but only $18 billion in expected revenues. An anti-tax attitude cripples our transportation infrastructure. That hurts small business, big business, and Minnesota’s quality of life in the long run.
What holds for transportation applies equally well to education, pollution control, job skills, health care, and economic development.
If you want to prosper well financially while building communities for the long haul, showing loyalty to Minnesota with its high quality of life, and supporting infrastructure needed for that quality of life — then you should recognize that taxes are a necessary cost of doing business well. This approach has built a better, prosperous Minnesota over decades. And all Hollerich’s pretending about Minnesota’s collapsing under the business tax burden does not prove otherwise.
Not investing in infrastructure is a “choose to lose” strategy whether in government or in private business. For example, that’s why Mayo Clinic is investing $5 billion in infrastructure over 20 years to maintain its national and international leadership in health care. That’s why the new state $300 million+ subsidy providing public infrastructure support, with Mayo’s expectation of adding as many as 40,000 direct or spinoff jobs, helps both small and large businesses and improves Minnesotans’ quality of life.
Ron Yezzi
Terrorism
See "My View: Gun logic doesn't add up in low-risk world," under the "Guns" heading
Click on the year links for older submissions.