INDIVISIBLE Lambertville NJ / New Hope PA

Author: Indivisible Lambertville / New Hope

  • The Veterans Affairs Healthcare System: Politics and the Privatization Debate

    Contributed by Paige Barnett. 

    The largest healthcare system in the U.S., the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) System, provides a wide range of services to those who have served in the military. As a taxpayer-funded endeavor, it is often subject to scrutiny by the media as well as political fodder for either party or agenda. Due to its size, complexity and needs of patients, the VA health care network has its own unique set of challenges. Republicans have called for privatization of the system, but whether this would serve the best interests and needs of the patients is open to debate.  

    Frequent stories in the media are often quick to point to failings and little about successes of the VHA. For example, in 2014, CNN ran an investigative expose, “A Fatal Wait: Veterans Languish and Die on a VA Hospital’s Secret Wait List.” which uncovered a long wait list of veterans at the Phoenix VA hospital. Undoubtedly, it was a situation that needed to be addressed and remedied. This story does not speak for all who experience the VHA care, however. “If you’ve ever been to a VA (Veterans Affairs) hospital, then you’ve only ever been to one VA hospital,”  said Dr. Roy Feldman, retired Chief, Dental Service of the VHA Hospital in Philadelphia.

    That is to say, not all VA hospitals are created equal; some are competently operated, while others lack competent leadership.  In fact, the consumer surveys of veteran end users show very favorable ratings in terms of delivery of care, with the VHA ranking better or best.  In addition, there is a “Choice” program, whereby if a veteran is unable to receive services through the local VHA, the VA will pay for an outside service.  In the treatment of PTSD and spinal cord injuries, the VHA ranks the best. Further, the doctors and nurses of the VHA are aligned with the mission to serve the veterans to the best of their abilities.    

    Political agendas are fueled by questions about whether the level of care delivered is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. A report by the VA Inspector General issued earlier this year which cited examples of financial waste and actions detrimental to patient safety at the Washington, DC hospital, served to heighten demands by the Republican administration to privatize the VHA system. It was also one of the factors leading to the ouster of VA Secretary, David Shulkin, who opposed privatization. Trump subsequently failed in his attempt to replace Shulkin his own personal doctor, Ronny L. Jackson, ultimately naming Robert Wilkie to the position in May 2018.

    Those with experience working within the VHA believe that the two most pressing problems are appropriating money without a succinct plan, and policy making that does not address the needs of the patients. To be sure, the size and scope of the VHA can slow down necessary changes, which is again, an oft-cited reason by the Republicans to privatize the system. But it’s that very size, complexity and unique needs of the patients that may be the saving grace of the VHA.

    Would it be wise to  privatize the second largest governmental budget? As Dr. Feldman aptly said, “You can’t get more politically correct than to support veterans.”  

    And never, ever mess with what is rightfully due to our veterans.

    Additional Reading:

  • TRUMP’S MILITARY AGENDA: Build to Destroy

    Contributed by Lisa Bergson. 

    WHEN ALI HAJAJI’S SON FELL ILL with diarrhea and vomiting, the desperate father turned to extreme measures. Following the advice of village elders, he pushed the red-hot tip of a burning stick into Shaher’s chest, a folk remedy to drain the “black blood” from his son.

    “People said burn him in the body and it will be O.K.,” Mr. Hajaji said. “When you have no money, and your son is sick, you’ll believe anything.”1

    Although not our biggest-ever defense budget — as Trump likes to boast2 — his two-year $1.4 trillion military spending authorization raises issues relating to economics and efficacy. On its face, our military spending should make our country stronger and safer, and, working in tandem with a robust and intelligent diplomatic effort, promote American values of democracy and free trade around the world.  Yet we find presently find ourselves collaborating with Saudi Arabia in a dubious proxy war with Iran, transpiring in one of the world’s poorest countries, Yemen.  There, the Saudis have promoted a strategy of economic strangulation, driving down Yemeni currency, blockading aid, and turning a blind eye to corruption among local coalition-backed officials.3

    This continues the sorry saga of our engagement in The Middle East, where we have been active, at least since the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The on-going lack of a well-thought-out endgame has plagued our direct and proxy wars, drained our Treasury, brutally damaged our reputation, inflamed terrorism, and exacerbated the refugee crisis.  As bravely illustrated in the New York Times, our tragic engagement in Yemen has put the populace on the brink of mass starvation and led to desperate measures, such as those conducted by Mr.Hajaji, who was trying to save his second son from the fate of his first – death by famine. “All the big countries say they are fighting each other in Yemen,” he said. “But it feels to us like they are fighting the poor people.”4

    At home, the economic impact of our growing emphasis on military build-up is more insidious and may take years to emerge. But already, Trump’s stepped-up military spending, combined with huge tax cuts, has drastically raised our government deficit, fueling inflation, which ultimately threatens our economic stability.  By putting money into non-consumable military expenditures, as opposed to goods and services that people can use, scarcity grows and, with it, higher prices.  That leads to inflation, classically defined as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Think supply & demand.

    Indeed, Trump’s stance is eerily reminiscent of the 1981-1989 Reagan era’s disastrous combination of “trickle down” economics, heavily cutting taxes for the wealthy, and military build-up.5  In what seems almost paltry compared to today’s budget, President Reagan planned to raise military spending from $162 billion in 1981 to $343 billion a year in 1986. Writing in 1981, MIT economist Lester Thurow warned against the potential damage this would have on the economy.  The accuracy of his predictions bears special consideration in our present scenario.

    Thurow foresaw that Reagan’s policies would lead to:

    • Inflation: Thurow sagely predicted “bottleneck inflation” based on the diversion of resources (manpower, materials, money) to military expenditures, leading to a drop in overall productivity. That said, his dire predictions actually fell way short of the real damage that resulted. Thurow wrote (boldface mine):

    If productivity does not recover and the economy’s real growth rate is 3 percentage points less than Mr. Reagan predicts…[and] the President is underestimating 1982 expenditures by $25 billion…. you have a deficit of $111 billion in fiscal 1986.6

    At the end of the day, by 1986, Reagan actually doubled the national debt from $998 billion to $2.1 trillion7!

    • Less innovation: “Since our high-technology civilian industries…demand the same equipment and personnel as our military industries, a rapid military buildup can only occur by taking resources out of the high-technology civilian sectors. The effects are going to be particularly severe in the semiconductor industry since it is going to be facing a Japanese onslaught during the next three years…. [But) our computer industry will be hemorrhaging personnel just when it needs its best brains to survive,” Thurow wrote.

    He was beyond prescient. The U.S. semiconductor industry, which had been in the forefront, fell so far behind the Japanese that the government (we taxpayers) had to pony up $500 million in 1987 for a five-year program run by the Department of Defense to “regain competitiveness”.8,9

    In addition to the damage to our high-tech industry, this writer also saw first-hand how Reagan’s policy sabotaged initiatives to become less carbon-dependent, as one of Reagan’s first budget cuts was to table all of President Jimmy Carter’s programs to develop alternative energy.  (Just think how far ahead of the global warming curve we would be if even a fraction of those projects had come to fruition!)

    To make matters worse, Bill Clinton wound up ripping into the welfare safety net and making other unpopular moves to restore our economy, much as Obama’s efforts to promote a socially progressive and economically restorative agenda were undercut, in part, by pressure to clean-up the enormous Bush deficit. (Someday it would be nice to see the Republicans clean up their own mess – or, then again, maybe it wouldn’t.  In any case, it is always the poor and the middle class who pay the price for these faulty policies.)

    Based on his experience, Robert Reich, Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, offers a lucid account of our current debacle:

    Since taking office, Trump has increased military spending by more than $200 billion. Let’s take a second to look at how else that $200 billion could be spent. We could, for example:

    Offer free public colleges and universities, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.

    And fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    And expand broadband internet access to rural America.

    And meet the growing needs for low-income housing, providing safe living conditions for families and the elderly.

    And help repair the physical devastation in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.10

    Of course, you could argue that protecting our nation is paramount, regardless of the cost to our economy and our civilian programs. But, this assumes that our military strategy is effective. For his part, Reich, now the chancellor’s professor for public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, questions how much of our “bloated” defense budget, more than two times that of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined, goes to waste:

    According to the Pentagon’s own internal figures, the department could save at least $125 billion by reducing operational overhead.

    Out-of-control defense contractors also drive up spending. In the coming years, cost overruns alone are projected to reach an estimated $484 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of the top five defense firms took home $97.4 million in compensation last year11

    These days, the rapidly expanding varieties and sophistication of “virtual threats”, like Chinese- backed infrastructure hackers and Russian social media trolls and election meddling, as well as the destructive and scary activities of domestic crazies, such as the recent massacre by a social-media-fueled anti-Semite, and the rise of Trump-inspired militias, like the Ku Klux Klan and the “Proud Boys” are examples of the confounding array of ways to wreak havoc and destruction. There is also a critical need to address the underlying causes of the destabilizing refugee crisis plaguing the west.  Such dislocations are prompted by vast geopolitical forces tied to the impacts of global warming, internecine wars, and terrorism — issues that all the drones in the world cannot eradicate.

    Aside from the lack of a viable endgame in conflict zones, U.S. military spending may be misdirected or, at a minimum, imbalanced with “soft-power” diplomatic, cultural, and economic programs. By way of example, Trump cut U.S.-sponsored “Peace Programs” in Israel that fostered Israel-Palestine musical gatherings and interfaith schools for children, designed to encourage tolerance and appreciation of differing cultures.  “This is my only chance to meet a Palestinian,” a 17-year-old Israeli musician, who loves Arabic music, told NPR’s “Here and Now”.12

    At a time when the threats we face call for a multi-faceted and well-orchestrated approach, our tools for promoting democracy and free trade (assuming these remain, in fact, our goals) become lesser and blunter. Echoing Thurow, Reich writes, “As Trump stokes tensions around the world, he’s adding fuel to the fire by demanding even more Pentagon spending. It’s a dangerous military buildup intended to underwrite endless wars and enrich defense contractors, while draining money from investment in the American people.”

    You that never done nothing
    But build to destroy
    You play with my world
    Like it’s your little toy
    “Masters of War”13 – Bob Dylan

    1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-yemen.html
    2. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trumps-defense-spending-exaggerations/
    3. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-yemen.html?module=inline
    4. ibid.
    5. “Beware of Reagan’s Military Spending”, Lester Thurow, The New York Times, May 31, 1981
    6. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH
    9. Interesting false history from conservative site, crediting Reagan’s policies for revitalizing Silicon Valley! https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1957.html
    10. https://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-trump-increased-military-spending-over-200-billion-heres-how-983843
    11. ibid.
    12. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/11/01/trump-cuts-funds-palestinian-peace-groups
    13. “Masters of War”, Bob Dylan, 1963, https://genius.com/Bob-dylan-masters-of-war-lyrics

     

    A flock of birds fly past the Marine One helicopter with U.S. President Donald Trump aboard, as he returns to the White House after a visit to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, U.S., December 21, 2017. REUTERS/JIM BOURG

  • VOTE on (or before) November 6: What’s At Stake

    Contributed by Action Groups.

    Artwork by Sarah Bush. Posters available. Donations welcome.

    Maybe we don’t have to give you more reasons to vote, but maybe we can encourage you to step up your efforts to get your family, friends and community to increase their efforts to GOTV. As of this writing, polls are saying that Republicans are narrowing the gap in the number of voters planning to head to the polls – so much so that the Blue Wave may not happen after all. Right now, all of our civil rights are being attacked and eroded. Here’s a small sampling of what’s at stake:

    • Vulnerable rights include Workers’ Rights, LGBTQ+ Rights, Women’s Rights, Prisoners’ Rights, Students’ Rights, First Amendment Rights, and Minority Rights.
    • The Right to Vote is on the line! Voters’ names are being purged from the rolls, and voting is being made less accessible for many poor, minority, and elderly voters. In NJ, people who are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole are denied the right to vote. Note: NJ denies the right to vote to 94,000 people with criminal convictions, and  three-fourths of those are on parole or probation, which means they are living in their communities. While 15% of NJ’s population is black, 50%of those denied the right to vote are black). Gerrymandering dilutes the power of individual votes.
    • Immigrants’ Rights are on the line! Nationally, we need to end family separations, end the detention of children, protect families, and protect individuals’ rights to due process! Locally, we need protections for all of our residents in our communities and protections for towns and cities who are identifying as Fair and Welcoming Communities or as Sanctuary Cities. We need to grant driver’s licenses to people without documentation.
    • The Federal Judiciary will be instrumental in interpreting voting laws that protect all citizens’ right to vote, gerrymandering challenges, and all civil rights! As the Trump administration packs federal judicial vacancies, our rights are weakened. All civil rights are at stake! Get out and vote to protect all of our rights!
    • The effectiveness of the 2020 census, which drives billions of dollars that come into communities from the federal government, and helps ensure accurate voting districts that foster true democratic representation in the electoral process. The effectiveness is currently compromised by inadequate oversight, including the necessary resources for outreach and cybersecurity.
    • Public safety with protection from gun violence and the protection of our natural resources, including clean land, air and water. What kind of world do you want to live in?

    What’s important to you and at risk? Use it to have the conversations to drive awareness and personal responsibility to ensure those who are given the power to govern actually deserve it.

  • Out and About – Adventures From the GOTV Road

    Contributed by Amara Willey.

    Many of our members have been canvassing door-to-door in support of our endorsed candidates. Sometimes, however, the road to voter turnout is a little rocky, albeit rewarding in opportunity to connect with potential voters and make a difference. Here a few stories from the trenches — quite literally:

    Olga Vannucci, a self-labeled “klutz,” had been telling her canvass partner that she is very careful about all the various steps leading up to people’s front doors. At one house she took a shortcut through a corner between the driveway and the walk to the front door.

    “I didn’t see that there was a single small mud puddle right there. My shoe slipped, and I went flying,” Olga reported.

    Although it was a small mud puddle, her whole right side was filthy. Instead of going home, however, the intrepid Olga took some plastic grocery bags put them on the car seat, took a short break and a few deep breaths and kept right on going door-to-door.

    On another occasion, Elaine Clisham had a meet-up with the resident dog.

    “I was about to go back down the steps when this little dog came running around the side of the house and up the steps, barking like crazy. It was just big enough for me to take it seriously, and I could tell it was extremely serious about getting me off that porch, so I went back down the steps very slowly, one step at a time,” Elaine explained. “I got to the bottom when the dog’s human came around the other side of the house and yelled at the dog, prompting it to jump up and bite me on the outside of my leg!”

    The human and his daughter, who had also come around the side of the house, were kind and apologetic, and administered first aid. But, before she left, the stalwart Elaine extracted a promise from the pair to vote for Tom Malinowski.

    Zoe Langdon noted, “The most gratifying moments are when we engage Dems that historically don’t vote in midterms or some Republicans who say, We’re fed up. I’m voting for sure.” Amara Willey had a lengthy conversation about policy with a Republican who was leaning towards voting for Tom Malinowski through his frustration with the current administration’s “shenanigans” in Washington. But what happens when Leonard Lance’s 12th grade Latin teacher answers the door? Cindi Sternfeld marked her down as “strong Lance” supporter.

    One of our members canvassed with a 16-year-old high school student whose guidance counselor had suggested she intern for the Malinowski campaign.  The student memorized the script along the way and by the end of the day, she was talking and engaging with the potential voters. Susan Shapiro said, “People were very patient with her and impressed that she was volunteering to do this work!”

    Susan as well as others who have been on the road say they believe in canvassing 100%.

    “It is very rewarding to see that you are getting through to people about the importance of voting, about needing checks and balances, and educating Democrats about the candidates,” Susan said. “Many don’t know [a candidate’s] positions and they appreciate me showing up to fill them in.”

  • Minding the Gap: Beginning to understand the economy and its effects on our quality of life

    Contributed by Diane J. Abatemarco, PhD, MSW.

    What’s wrong with the economy?  It’s an interesting and yet a complex question that most of us are unable to answer.  One reason is that we do not have a working knowledge of our economic health and the national policies that affect our economic health. Questions such as who contributes to the economy and who prospers from economic growth have been shrouded in a hegomonic* haze as part of our political economic culture.

    What do I mean by “hegomonic haze?” Well, it’s pretty clear that if we understood the profit margin and our contribution to the GNP from the work we do, we would surely insist that the wage gap between the 1% and the other 99% should reflect the profits being made. To understand the profits made in America, we would need to see earnings reported by corporate executives and shareholders (when their companies are private) and know the percentage of increases in their wages over time as well as the percentage of increases in our wages. It’s a pretty easy statistic to share but nonetheless not one that is provided.

    With a millimeter shift in perception, we as Americans can look at our own pockets to know what statistics reflect the economy and its effect on our financial health. For instance, the wage gap between the top 1% and the rest of us shows that while the wealthiest 1% of the nation has seen an astronomical increase in their wealth… not so much for the average American.

    Remember that in the 1970’s — a mere 50 years ago — a mortgage payment for the average American was less than 25% of net income after taxes and benefits. What is it now? Now the guidance is that it should be less or equal to 30% of gross wages, that is before taxes, health insurance, pension, etc. In fact, we know from PEW research that real wages have not grown in 40 years. This means that although paychecks have grown it has not kept up with cost of living.

    David Leonhardt of the NY Times notes this in his op-ed piece, “We’re Measuring the Economy All Wrong,” that although the official statistics say that the financial crisis is behind us, he shows how it is not. His article also describes how the old and confounding the statistics used to talk about our economy are not useful, except to perhaps keep us confused and to not demand that Congress create policies which enhance our financial health.

    How will Trump’s new tariffs and the GOP’s new taxation structure affect us? Well, it’s pretty much the same old, same old. The 1% will not lose out but for the rest of us it’s a different story. Look for future columns that take a dive into these and other economic policies.

    *hegemony 1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : domination   //battled for hegemony in Asia.  2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group.