WASHINGTON IS IN THE RETIREMENT SWEET SPOT

Now that Forbes Magazine has placed Pittsburgh on its list of Best Places to Retire three years in a row and placed Morgantown on the list in 2014, Washington County is in the retirement sweet spot.  Washington combines the best of both locations with affordable housing, abundant shopping, proximity to an international airport and a thriving home grown senior population.  One could argue that we deserve a place on the list next to our neighbors.

Here in Washington, volunteer opportunities for seniors are numerous, taxes are low and retirees can take advantage of three Pittsburgh professional sports teams that regularly make the playoffs. Excellent college teams reside both south in Morgantown and north in Pittsburgh. Retirees quickly learn that it takes only a few minutes longer to drive to downtown Pittsburgh from East Washington as it does from Wexford or Monroeville.

The Forbes Magazine survey is focusing on retirees who have the economic means to move anywhere in the country to enjoy their golden years. These new residents have money to spend and time to lend a helping hand with no children to stress the public schools. Washington County should be promoting itself to attract these individuals.

 Many retirees are “four season” people who love the climate changes that Western Pennsylvania has to offer.  Add to the climate one of the world’s best health care systems; a world class Symphony at Heinz Hall (and the local Washington Orchestra); an excellent Regional Theater at the O’Reilly (and the Off the Wall theater in Carnegie); and outstanding museums and parks throughout the area. The exciting restaurant revival in our region is another perk.  It is no wonder that Southwestern Pennsylvania did so well in the Forbes retirement survey.

If Forbes Magazine were to undertake a deep dive into Washington County as a place to retire, what would be the draw backs?  No doubt crime/drugs and lack of economic diversity would be high on the list. In regard to the former, District Attorney Eugene Vittone is committed to working with region wide task forces and showing no mercy to drug suppliers while treating addicts as patients first and criminals only when violent crimes are committed.  In regard to the latter, Commissioner Larry Magi has recently discussed the importance of diversification that lessens over dependence on energy, hopefully with a mix of advanced manufacturing, technology, health care and finance.  Both issues are receiving high priority by County officials and will be solved over time to make our quality of life even better.

No place is perfect.  Washington County is far better than most.  Contact your friends and family who are aging baby boomers in other parts of the Country and sing the praises of one of the best places to retire.

REPUBLICANS PLUNDER THE ROBIN HOOD MYTH

Most American workers are confused by economics.  While they certainly know when they are not doing well, working longer hours for less pay, it is the causes of this inability to get ahead that are not easily explained. 

This lack of certainty in economics has given republicans great leeway in blaming the wrong social and economic factors for lack of opportunity and frozen wages.  Unfortunately, many in the working middle class believe these unsupported theories that are circulated by conservatives.

The example that irks me the most is the conservative high jacking of the Robin Hood myth, as brilliantly described by James Meek in the London Review of Books (Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity, LRB 18 February 2016).   The conservative version of the Robin Hood Legend has all the same players as the original medieval tale but gives “robbing the rich to pay the poor” a whole new meaning. 

Under this conservative revisionist story of Robin Hood the great mass of heavily taxed citizens who work hard for little reward are identified as our disgruntled working class.  All but the ultra rich (the one percent), are included in this category including multi millionaires who work for a living.  The profits from their labor and taxes they pay go to support a number of arrogant lazy individuals who have no need to work, now identified as anyone receiving public benefits.  The vast liberal bureaucracy is identified as the Sheriff of Nottingham.  The ultra rich become the absent monarch, King Richard, who are cast as a kinder, more benevolent authority, insuring that capitalism, including inherited wealth, survives in its purest form.  Lastly, conservative politicians set themselves up as Robin Hood figures, seeking to right the wrong by knocking down the disabled, the single mothers, refugees and other assorted chiselers and cheats.  The new mantra becomes:”take back from the not working poor to give to working citizens, including the wealthy.”

While this economic model that excludes give backs from rich Americans seems preposterous, there is a reason why republicans are able to get away with it.  Many low and middle income working Americans prefer to align their economic interests with wealthy workers than with those who do not work at all.  How else to explain disgruntled American workers and small business owners throwing in their lot with a multi billionaire presidential candidate, who lives in the stratified air of penthouses, private jets, yachts and country clubs rather than with the progressive democrats seeking an end to income inequality from the top down.

In a recent cover story The Economist pushes back against this republican economic myth from a different angle. (Why high profits are a problem for America, The Economist March 26-April1 2016).  It becomes clear that there are additional hard facts to explain why the one percent continues to gather extraordinary wealth.  This probing comprehensive study finds that the profits realized by the largest American corporations comprising the S&P 500 have been too large for too long when compared with historical averages.  While these corporations employ fewer workers, now only one in ten, they have amassed over-sized profits through consolidation, productivity, lobbying for favorable regulations and arcane patent laws.  These giants suck up all the air in many sectors of the market economy leaving little room for small businesses and startups.  This places severe restrictions on competition and the hiring of new employees.

This well documented article makes clear that the enemy of the small and medium size employer is not the safety net created to help the most disadvantaged among us.  What are holding back new business ventures and new employment is our largest corporations that are realizing returns on equity 40% higher at home than abroad.  By in large these profits are not being reinvested, not used to increase wages and not returned to consumers by lowering prices.

Before a Republican Congress attempts to cut corporate tax rates, give amnesty to overseas profits, or permit further consolidation of large business interests it needs to understand this clear and convincing example of runaway corporate greed.  Perhaps conservatives seeking a more equitable America will even return the Robin Hood myth to its original intent:  to take from the rich and give to the poor.

MANY TRADITIONAL POLITICAL AXIOMS GET BROKEN

That sound you hear in our highly charged political biosphere is not unlike the sound of arctic glaciers falling off into the sea. This eerie crash is the collapse of golden rules that normally control our political processes.  Donald Trump and his supporters are to politics what global warming is to climate change. Other forces are at work as well as many traditional political axioms come tumbling down.

The first rule holds that: “Presidential Campaigns must be based on optimism and forward looking issues.”  This maxim is based on the thinking that a positive campaign is more likely to broaden a party’s base and help the candidate enlarge his appeal in the few swing states that decide most presidential elections.  Candidate Trump has shattered this rule by insisting that little is right with the Country and that only his bold unarticulated vision will “make America great again.”  Significant blocks of voters are viewed as part of the problem and attacked in order to hold together his angry coalition of supporters.

In previous presidential elections the axiom has been: “Be presidential on the campaign trail and in debates. Let the Super PACS do the negative campaigning.”  Again, Trump has fractured this rule by a) not having a PAC and b) showering competitors with degrading personal attacks at rallies and during debates

In the modern era of presidential politics: “developing a strong ground game in state and local party organizations” has been an indispensable maxim to ensure victory.  Trump has not only ignored this rule, he has successfully accumulated large numbers of delegates without it.  His success has been based on endless media coverage, name recognition and large boisterous rallies.  It remains to be seen whether Trump can be successful at the convention and/or in the general election without developing contacts down in the weeds of state and local party politics.

 Pennsylvania has its own broken maxim, not related to Trump. There is an unwritten political truism that:  “A Supreme Court Justice is the most secure, influential and above reproach elected position in the Commonwealth.”  This rule is supported by our constitution which seeks to place the judiciary above the political fray and as a check on other political institutions.  Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania almost half of the Supreme Court Justices have been replaced (3) since 2012 for criminal activity and for ethical conduct unbecoming of a Judge. The Supreme Court has been forced into a defensive position and its respect has been severely damaged.

The United States Congress has a rule that: “Once a congressional district has been reapportioned in favor of voters who are members of the Congressman’s own party, reelection will become all but automatic.”  This maxim (also called gerrymandering after Mass. Governor Elbridge Gerry who sought to redraw this Commonwealth’s voting districts in 1812) has been seriously undermined by the tea party. 

It has become common for republican office holders to be “primaried” out of office by candidates to their right, despite the incumbent’s own conservative credentials. The redistricting has backfired against the establishment republicans responsible for tinkering with the voting maps in the first place.  Representative Eric Cantor, Republican House Majority Leader from Virginia, is the most well known victim of this broken political rule.  Despite his high regard and position in the Washington republican hierarchy, he lost his primary contest to a non establishment tea party supporter.

Since the chaos of the 1968 democratic convention, leaders from both parties have stuck by the axiom that: “presidential conventions are to be well choreographed infomercials that place party and candidate in the best possible light.”  The 2016 republican convention in Cleveland is shaping up to be anything but.  The republican establishment is trampling on its own rule by pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on a first ballet.  If they are successful there will be a contested convention with demonstrations, back biting and meetings in smoke filled rooms that display anger and disagreement not unity.

Perhaps the most important liberal political maxim in recent years has been: “the Federal Supreme Court decision Citizens United is an abomination to the political process and must be reversed.”  This decision struck down limits on corporations’ campaign expenditures.  Liberals believe it permits billionaires to buy elections. In the present election, Citizens United has been a non factor and rarely discussed.  Trump uses his own resources and has not organized a PAC or sought out large donors. The democratic candidates are battling to accumulate the largest number of small donors.  Outsized contributions from billionaires and corporations are not encouraged and considered a negative by all the campaigns.  Instead, “Not being bought” is a major theme in all the stump speeches.

A significant political maxim in presidential election years is that: “under card party candidates for the House, Senate and local elections need a strong candidate at the top of the ticket to carry them to victory.”  Ticket splitting, even among independents in a general election, is not prevalent in modern American politics.  This leaves republican candidates in blue and purple states in a quandary. Do they support Trump with vigor, give him lip service only, or forge an all out attack against him, to remain in office? How this issue is resolved will determine whether republicans will be able to retain the majority in the Senate.

Many other political maxims are in danger of being broken in the general election.  Will we have an election where candidate personalities with the highest negative ratings in history will be more important than positions and/or principles?  Will voters who have a long track record of loyal party voting, instead vote their heart, their country or their moral beliefs? Will traditional conservatives and/or young progressives not vote at all? Will a third party emerge to not only challenge but defeat the established parties?

 Stay tuned for the sound of additional traditional political maxims crashing to the ground.

THE MIDDLE FINGER TRUMP SUPPORTERS

It is common for presidential primaries to be about change.  Political actors with a vision for America will often spend time and money in support of marginal primary candidates who support their fringe views.  While the candidate supported may not win the nomination, the views of the non winner have often influenced the party platform and ideological positions going forward.

What is different about the 2016 republican primaries is that a personality has “trumped” conservative ideology.  Instead of advocating change within a party framework, legions of supporters have abandoned and ridiculed the republican establishment in favor of this personality, Donald Trump.  There is an intuitive feeling among Trump backers that what traditional political leaders with strong views could not accomplish, a strong leader who appears to think and talk like they feel, will accomplish.  Better to move forward with a powerful leader than to get nothing done with a weak right thinking ideologue.

 The Trump philosophy was summed up nicely when he re- tweeted the well worn quote: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep” just days before the Super Tuesday Primaries.  This statement is attributed to fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini who got the trains to run on time in Italy by crushing all political opposition.  Like Trump, Mussolini’s political slogan was: “make us great again” in the hope of returning Italy to the glory of the Roman Empire.  Maybe like Trump, Mussolini saw no need for inept coalition building after the electorate gave him an open mandate to create order from perceived chaos.

If Trump sees himself as the flash in the pan lion the rest of us must ask who he sees as the old and wizened sheep.  Getting things done through a blitz of bullying and bravado at the expense of democracy is not an original political doctrine.  It is a path to power most of us thought was buried at the end of the Second World War.

 Another fascist leader famously said:” Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”  Adolf Hitler captured the imagination of the German electorate as a straight talking bully with the big lie he could “make Germany great again” and went on to destroy the world.  Hitler unified disgruntled Germans by attacking Jews and weak- kneed politicians.  Trump is unifying disgruntled Americas by attacking immigrants, Muslims and weak-kneed politicians.

 Those of you who are raising the middle finger to the republican establishment in support of Donald Trump, in the hope of returning America to the Promised Land, be careful what you wish for.  Your candidate may soon be raising the middle finger to our constitutional republic as he seeks to have his yet to be articulated vision for America trump all others.

BRINKMANSHIP HAS REPLACED COMPROMISE IN ALL OF OUR POLITICAL AFFAIRS

If I were to choose a word to define our political world in this 2016 winter of our discontent, it would be “brinkmanship.”  This term is defined as:  the art or practice of pursuing a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping, typically in politics.  We are surrounded by examples of brinkmanship and they are dangerous indeed.

In Pennsylvania, our democratic governor and republican legislature continue to practice brinkmanship on a scale that not even the most jaded political observers thought possible.  We are entering into a second year in which the passing of a constitutionally mandated state budget seems unachievable.  Political ideologies have replaced political compromise.  As school districts and social service agencies scramble to keep the doors open, irreparable damage is being caused to the Commonwealth.

In the presidential election Donald Trump practices brinkmanship to the limits of acceptable populist politics and behavior on the campaign trail. His insults against Latinos and Muslims are borderline racist and have invoked angry reactions abroad and religious rebukes from the Pope.  His use of profanity and insults against other candidates are uncivil and in bad taste.  None of this conduct will cease until it begins to have a negative effect on his political campaign.

Congress has continued to toy with brinkmanship in 2016 mostly through omission and “kicking the can down the road.” The national debt, Social Security and Medicare reform and funding for road, bridge and electric grid infrastructure simply get ignored.  One has the feeling that only a significant crisis, like the 2008 financial meltdown, will reverse this edge of the cliff mentality and result in positive action.

In the Syrian conflict, the major actors: The United States, Iran, Turkey, Kurdish fighters,  Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad and Syrian rebel groups are all practicing brinkmanship.   Syria has become the worst humanitarian disaster in the history of the Middle East.  The citizens of an entire country are either being massacred by the ongoing violence, starved to death, or forced to become part of the large migration into Europe, where they are not welcome.  While all the actors agree that only a political solution can stop this destruction of a nation, all attempts to broker a cease fire have been feeble at best. Apparently, only when the groups supporting Assad gain the advantage will this policy change.

 

 The ongoing blow-up in the oil and gas markets, now well over a year old, is a classic example of brinkmanship.  In the past the OPEC countries, lead by Saudi Arabia developed a consensus on oil and gas production to cause minimal disruption to the world economy.  In November of 2014, the Saudis went their own way and decided not to cut production no matter how low the price of oil became.  The result has been major economic dislocations in Brazil, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria and in the United States shale belt. This brinksmanship is designed to cripple the Saudi’s mortal enemy Iran, now back in the oil market, and to bankrupt other producers around the world.  This policy is causing economic and political dislocations in Saudi Arabia as well, so the political danger on the Saudi home front from this brinkmanship is real and growing.

 

Other recent examples of brinkmanship abound, including North Korea firing missiles, knowing that the world would react with sanctions and possible force; Russian involvement in the Ukraine and Isis taking terrorism to a new level, forcing the civilized world to take action to destroy it.  Many scientists would argue that the brinkmanship of world leaders in failing to react vigorously to climate change has placed humanity on the path of no return.

 

With the exception of the Iran nuclear agreement, political compromise, defined as a way of reaching an agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute, has not been in vogue in 2016.  This is not an optimistic trend. 

 

Continuing to live on the brink will eventually result in disaster and force political compromise back into play.  The cumulative damage before rationality returns will be enormous in terms of lost human life, broken political institutions and failed international relations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A PROPOSAL FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

The country has been discussing the Iowa and New Hampshire presidential primaries since last summer. Now that they are completed, following the months of anticipation, millions of dollars spent by the candidates and all of the national media reporting 24/7 from cold environs in local taverns, what do we know?

We know that the primary season began with two of the whitest states in the union.  Arguably, the only Latinos in town were the migrant workers hiding from the Trump and Cruz supporters who gathered to degrade them.  The few minorities at the polling sites belonged to members of the media and to out of state volunteers.

We know that every four years a conservative republican supported by evangelicals wins the Iowa caucuses and goes on to lose the nomination.  We know that democratic candidates, who worked the small but energetic college campuses in Iowa and called for progressive ideals that will never see the light of day, did well in the caucuses.  We know that when all else failed, singing the praises of ethanol gained some support.

In New Hampshire there is actually a traditional voting process.  But the results can be suspect because under state law any voter can walk into a polling pace and choose a primary ballot for any party. In neither contest, nor in the third and fourth contests, the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus, is there an urban area of any consequence represented.

 Thus, every four years our presidential primaries are front loaded with  ultra conservative rural republican and ultra progressive college town democratic populations.  Moderates are nowhere to be found.  The candidates are compelled to speak to the fringes of our political system in order to stay in the race. It is not surprising that outlier candidates do better in these early primaries than more mainstream ones.

No one would advocate that we return to the “smoky back room” system of choosing presidential candidates at conventions, guided by party bosses.  But if we are going to have primaries let’s make them enjoyable, representative of the general population and tied to the issues that will dominate the mainstream of political discourse in the general election.

The enjoyable part is easy.  Americans love to live vicariously through their celebrities in warmer climates.  There is nothing like watching a golf tournament from Phoenix, Pebble Beach or Doral on a snowy day to chase away the winter blues.  Or to follow ones favorite baseball team in spring training. If the early February primaries followed the winter PGA schedule to California, Arizona and Florida, the brutal campaign schedule would be more pleasant for candidates and viewers alike. In addition to warm breezes, this approach would have two of our largest and most diverse states voting early in the primary process.

There are a number of ways to make the remaining primaries more representative so that all of the United States feels part of the important business of choosing a president. I would favor what has been called the “Rotating Regional Plan” to take place after the three “sunshine” primaries above.  Under this scheme, the country is divided into four regions. Each region takes its turn voting first every four years.  The four primaries would rotate on a once a month schedule, March through June.

It is clear that the traditional primary schedule has worn out its usefulness and needs to be revamped.  It is simply not reflective of representative government to have these small states play such an outsized role in presidential politics.   Moreover, with my proposal those frozen volunteers from Iowa and New Hampshire can go to a warm climate in February to work on the campaign of their choice.

AUTISM IS NOT THE NEW NORMAL

In today’s multifaceted world of seven billion humans, is there any method to determine what is normal?  Stated another way, given all the complexity in the world, what human activities and conditions make it under the umbrella of diverse but normal human behavior?

Starting with religion, almost all spiritual practices would seem to qualify as normal short of violent voodoo worship and human sacrifice. All races and ethnicities make the cut. Accepted sexual diversity would now include homosexuality and transgender individuals but not pedophilia.  Diverse political philosophies would be included excepting terrorism, ethnic cleansing and unilateral aggression against sovereign nations.

 We do not typically apply the label of normal when discussing disease or disability.  This is appropriate because it is often society’s aim to help sick and disabled individuals live the best life possible. This is accomplished by society recognizing the consequences and uniqueness of a particular disease or disability and dedicating resources to develop medicines, therapies and accommodations for afflicted individuals.

In reading a recent article on autism, I was shocked to learn that not all individuals characterized as autistic want to be labeled as such and prefer to be part of a new normal. (The New Yorker, Seeing the Spectrum 1/25/16)

Apparently, we now have autistic individuals who are “neurodiversity activists”.  These are individuals on the higher end of the autism-asperger spectrum who insist they are neurologically “normal” and who disdain all labels that would make them otherwise.  To the horror of parents struggling with autistic children, these activists proclaim to all who will listen that: “there should be no more talk of pathology and no more programs for treatment and cure”.  Their creed is that: “in the same way that we have learned to celebrate racial, ethnic and sexual diversity, we should now be celebrating neurodiversity.”  Under this theory, autism is just another way of looking at the world.  They are diverse but normal.

I find this approach to autism, or any physical/ mental disease or defect troubling.  Should we expand the normal human condition to include deafness because Beethoven wrote symphonies while deaf?  Perhaps we should make room for cancer, blindness, paraplegia, or severe mental illness because of Van Gogh’s magnificent paintings?   I think not.

Ironically, certain infirmities come with a long practiced therapy where admitting abnormality is part of the cure.  Alcoholics and Addicts are taught to attend meetings and identify with others suffering from the same condition.  This self identification includes standing up and proclaiming your name and that you have the disease. The 12 step program has the central goal of breaking down denial and admitting you are not normal. The therapy has also worked well for eating disorders and gambling problems.

In my view when it comes to disease or disability, recognizing you have a problem that is not normal and that requires special attention is key toward conquering or at least accommodating the impairment.  For those who have overcome the disease or disability, the least they can do is help others who are not as fortunate to find a path forward.

Experience has shown that while some autistic adults can learn to live independently, many cannot.  It is understandable that no one wants to be tagged with a label that makes them different, be it autistic or diabetic.  But lobbying to make autism or any other disease or disability part of the diverse but normal human condition is going too far. It is a self centered response that will drive away public awareness and research dollars.