Category Archives: Government Issues

the root of the problem

How is Brexit Going?

Finance, Government Issues, International

I have often wondered if Breit was a good idea. I found the following article interesting. Warning, it is quite long and several months old

Britain is slowly waking up to the truth: Brexit has left us poorer, adrift and alone

Now Boris Johnson’s gone, all but the most hardened of leavers have been forced to see through those rosy visions of life outside the EU

Last week, having whiled away two joyous days at the Tories’ conference in Birmingham, I spent a long afternoon an hour’s drive away, in the cathedral city of Worcester. The plan was to sample the mood of the kind of place once considered to hold the key to British elections: remember “Worcester woman”, the swing-voting stereotype talked up in the New Labour years? But I was also there to gather more evidence of how much the UK’s current woes are affecting the kind of average-to-affluent places that might once have weathered any economic storm.

Not entirely surprisingly, people said they were worried and scared. Some talked about grownup children suddenly terrified that a mortgage is beyond their reach; others described a new and unsettling habit of using sparing amounts of gas and electricity. The autumn’s increasingly awful mood music – from talk of cancelled local Christmas markets to the possibility of three-hour power cuts – informed just about every conversation I had.

Mention of politics drew some very interesting responses indeed. “I just miss Boris,” said Julie, who works at the city-centre branch of Boots, and told me she had long since got used to conversations with her customers about the impossibility of their living costs. As she and a few other people saw it, Johnson had successfully managed the Covid vaccination programme, and brought some pizzazz and humour to the boring world of politics, which had now reverted to type. They also voiced something I have heard a few times lately: a belief that he had represented the last hope of Brexit somehow opening the way to a happier and more prosperous country, a dream that died when he left Downing Street.

Clearly, that is a very generous opinion of a man who told just as many self-serving lies about leaving the EU as he did about most other things. At the heart of some lingering fondness for him, perhaps, is a lot of people’s refusal to admit how much they were duped. But that view of life before and after Johnson highlights something that is now settling among all but the most hardened Brexit supporters: a quiet, slightly tortured realisation that all those optimistic visions of life outside the EU are not going to materialise, even if the crises triggered by Vladimir Putin eventually subside.

British people being British people, this is not yet a matter of any widespread anger. Though they probably ought to, no one is about to charge into the streets and demand any kind of Brexit reckoning. But if you want to understand the current political moment – and some of the reasons why the Conservatives have so suddenly and spectacularly imploded – here is a strangely overlooked part of the story.

Whoever people blame for our current predicament, one vivid fact is inescapable. The future that 17 million voters bought into six years ago has now collapsed into its precise opposite. In the summer of 2016, let us not forget, Johnson, Michael Gove and the former Labour MP Gisela Stuart jointly put their names to an article in the Sun which insisted that once Brexit happened, “the NHS will be stronger, class sizes smaller and taxes lower. We’ll have more money to spend on our priorities, wages will be higher and fuel bills will be lower.”

A year later, Jacob Rees-Mogg – who still seems to be trying to sniff out undiscovered “Brexit opportunities” – assured anyone who would listen that leaving the EU would open the way to much cheaper food, and therefore increase people’s disposable income. Brexit is not the only thing that has revealed the impossibility of those dreams, but that is not quite the point: making promises like that was both stupid and dangerous, and we are now starting to live with the consequences.

For Liz Truss and her government, post-Brexit politics is proving to be impossible. They want life outside the EU to mean Darwinian economics, public spending cuts and a smaller welfare state – which is not what millions of leave supporters thought they were voting for in the 2016 referendum, nor what the Tories offered in the two elections that followed. Meanwhile, trying to wriggle out of Brexit’s endless constraints in pursuit of growth threatens to tie the government in knots. Suella Braverman, a home secretary who embodies all of modern Conservatism’s nastiness and introversion, says she wants to cut net migration to “tens of thousands”. But Downing Street has been signalling that it wants to liberalise the UK’s immigration system, a move that would definitely send a certain kind of Brexit voter into paroxysms of fury. Everything is a mess because the logic of Truss and her allies’ position cannot hold: as the Brexit revolution that upturned Conservative politics and brought them to power unravels, the reason for their success is also a guarantee of their failure.

Given its longstanding refusal to question our exit from the EU, Keir Starmer’s Labour party faces some comparable contradictions, but seems to be tentatively trying to find a way through. One of the most fascinating moments of the past two weeks of political theatre happened during Starmer’s conference speech in Liverpool, when Starmer actually mentioned the B word, and tentatively talked about what Brexit’s calamities mean for people’s view of politics. Many who voted for Brexit, he said, did so because they wanted “democratic control over their lives … opportunities for the next generation, communities they felt proud of, public services they could rely on”. This was a slightly rose-tinted reading of recent history, but it just about rang true. He added: “Whether you voted leave or remain, you’ve been let down.” His claim that he will somehow make Brexit work still sounds deeply questionable, but this is a start: an acknowledgment, at least, of the lies and cynicism that got us here.

Whether mounting disappointment and resentment will simply mean a neat switch from the Tories to Labour is another matter. The untruths Tony Blair told about the Iraq war eventually played their part in the huge crisis of public trust that led on to Brexit, and the endless political flux that followed it. Now, 2016’s deceits are being revealed in an even more toxic political environment, awash with conspiracy theory and polarisation. Anyone who assumes that a mood of cynicism, fear and dashed hopes will put politics the correct way up ought to maybe think about recent events in Italy, Sweden and France – and, closer to home, that instant nostalgia for the reckless, authoritarian style of leadership that Johnson combined with his more showbiz aspects. Once Truss is out of the way, the ultimate Brexit paradox may yet materialise: a horrific boost for the very kind of politics its failure ought to have killed stone dead.

  • John Harris is a Guardian columnist. To listen to his podcast Politics Weekly UK, search “Politics Weekly UK” on Apple, Spotify, Acast or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism. 

From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against racism and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble. 

Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

Health in Crisis

Broken in the USA, Finance, Government Issues, Health Care

Health in Crisis

Frequent readers will know that Healthcare in our country is my primary soapbox issue. The importance of this most important system not only impacts the quality of life and longevity it is the single largest contributor to both the national debt and the high tax burden on the middle class.  The following link will take you to an excellent article regarding the decline of health in our country. Our healthcare system is broken.

America Was in an Early-Death Crisis Long Before COVID – The Atlantic

In terms of quality care, the USA does not fare well. There are several services that rate countries by quality. None of them rank us above #18 and the WHO (probably using the most credible factors ranks us as 37th). See info on how they define the quality of care at: www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/quality-health-services

Since we spend far more per capita on healthcare than any other country we should expect to be number 1 rated by all. What has gone wrong? Why is our per capita costs more than double the average of the EU countries, Australia & New Zealand? Should residents of the wealthiest country in the world expect that quality healthcare is a “right”, not something that is available if you can afford to pay?

The ”Affordable” Healthcare Act was initially a step in the right direction, the final version was a disaster from the perspective of the middle class.  Keep in mind that although per capita GDP has doubled in the past 20 years, the average family income has only increased by 8 %. Consider a middle-class couple that earns a typical middle-class income of $80,000 per year, but has no company-provided health insurance. Their insurance premium will run about $800 per month for a silver plan. This plan is only affordable if neither person uses it. The premium only amounts to about 12% of their pretax income. However, If both max out usage then the cost (with co-pays & deductibles) can exceed 30% of pretax income.

Compare this to the situation in most of the EU countries where healthcare is considered a right and not a privilege. The cost of health insurance and copays is less than 5%. This is what I mean when I say that our healthcare system is a “hidden” tax that we are paying.

The situation only gets worse. Healthcare is the single largest Industry (by dollar volume) in our country.  At over $3 trillion per annum, this is a massive industry. About 1/3 of this is covered by Federal Programs (Medicare & Medicaid) and slightly less than 1/3 by company benefit plans with the balance paid by private residents via the affordable care act premiums and all insurance copays. In total, we are paying out over $11,000 per capita per year. This is about 2 ½ times the average of the EU countries. If we could cut our costs in half (we would still be higher than most) how would that impact the National Debt? Did you know that the average administrative costs for Medicare & Medicaid are under 3%? Did you know that the average administrative costs plus profits for Health Insurance Companies are over 20%?  Did you know that the average nightly room cost in a hospital here (Not including any medical services) is over $1,100 (about 4 times the EU average)? Did you know that the average income of physicians is double the average for EU countries? You probably know how much more we pay for RX drugs here. You may not know that we have 3 times as many lawyers per capita as the EU countries. Do you think any of the previous factors are impacting healthcare costs?  

I Want to Run for President (inspired by “Designated Survivor” streaming on Net Flix)

Broken in the USA, Government Issues, tax related issues

I Want to Run for President (inspired by “Designated Survivor” streaming on Net Flix)

You probably think this is a joke. It is not, but I realize it is not doable. If I did the following would be the basis of my platform:

I would only serve for one term and put all of my efforts into that term, with no reelection campaigning.

I would run as an independent and not take funding from any source in excess of $1,000. Regardless of the amount, I would not take any donation from a SuperPAC.

If I was fortunate enough to fill a Supreme Court position, I would only consider moderate Judges that were not registered members of a Political Party.

I would call for an independent third-party audit of all government departments. Audit firms would be interviewed with the understanding that their fees would be paid out of the first 3 years’ of savings, not to exceed 25% of those savings. The scope of the audit would cover staffing & administrative efficiency and marketplace wage analysis.

I would not spend any taxpayer funds on the White House to “improve” or upgrade other than routine repairs and maintenance.

I would restrict funding of White House social functions other than for certain international relations. I will not be wearing a suit while working at home.

I will introduce a bill that requires all those serving the country to abide by the healthcare, retirement, and other benefits enjoyed by the rest of the voters.

I would make Healthcare reform my highest priority. Our country has by far the highest annual per capita cost of first-world countries at over $11,000. At the same time the WHO ranks us 37th in terms of quality of care. Our costs are 2 ½ times the cost of the EU average per capita cost. Almost all of the EU countries rank ahead of us in terms of quality of care. I would direct that we evaluate several other successful systems, selecting the best and most efficient practices resulting in a healthcare reform bill. Healthcare should be a right, not a benefit for the wealthiest country in the world. An efficient system will do this and at the same time is the single issue capable of both reducing tax and the budget deficit.

I would impose military intrusion into any country experiencing internal civil conflict, regardless of our economic considerations. I would aggressively support methods to target terrorist strongholds, regardless of the country, but favor technology-based solutions rather than those that are manpower intensive.

I would appoint the most qualified staff available since I have no political favors to repay. My VP candidate would need to be in complete agreement with my platform.

I would be a vocal advocate for term limits with a phase-in period. We need representation that sees their role as a “service” and not as a career. Anything beyond 10 – 12 years combined service in the Senate and/or Congress is a career. I also would submit a bill that would change the Congressional Reps’ terms from 2 years to 4. A 2-year term is ridiculous as they spend 1 year working and the next running for reelection. I like the idea of 50% of the positions being up for election every two years.

I would introduce a tax bill that would reduce the burden on the middle class. It would be tied to the healthcare reform bill which would pay for much of the tax reduction. It would include a fraction of increases to the top 5%. I would recommend that at least a portion of tax be based on “wealth” as opposed to the income in a specific year. This will prevent the very wealthy from paying no tax.  My thinking is that every family with a net worth exceeding $1 million would pay .5% of the equity up to $5 million, 1% on the net worth from the next $5 million, and 1.5% on the next $10 million and 2% on anything over $20 million.

Our country competes in a Global economy. To support our businesses, I would eliminate the corporate income tax and also taxes on dividends. While initially, this may sound like a windfall the free-market system would eventually respond with more competitive pricing. Today companies jump through hoops to avoid paying taxes and as a result, less than 9% of all Federal revenues are from companies.

The last tax reduction had both good and bad news The good news is the increased standard deduction made filing easier since it reduced the number of returns needing to itemize and it also helped out very low-income families. The bad news is that the top 10% of income earners received 2/3rds of the tax reduction benefit and the middle class received almost no benefit. The middle class is the “engine” of our economy. Over the past 20 years, the average middle-class family income has only risen 8% while GDP has doubled. Does this seem fair?

I would appoint a bipartisan commission comprised of both major parties and independents to evaluate systems employed by other countries that have much lower gun death rates without allowing citizens to own sufficient arms for protection and sport hunting. I would instruct the commission to only consider “evidence-based” data with the objective of crafting a gun safety bill.

Our country has 4.5% of the world’s population and we incarcerate almost 25% of all the inmates in the world. About 50% of crimes are drug-related and almost 2/3rds of all prisoners are repeat offenders. Other first-world countries with less crime have incarceration rates that are a fraction of ours. I would appoint a commission to review other systems with the objective of crafting a bill to improve our numbers and reduce the cost to the taxpayer. More prisons are not the answer!

I would introduce a bill that would either eliminate or severely restrict special-interest lobbying. The bill would restrict any federal election campaigning (or fundraising) to the period 4 months prior to the election. The bill would also cap what would be allowed for total spending. So much for a Representative, so much for the Senate and so much for President.

I believe we need to think long-term when it comes to the environment. I will support any legislation that provides for a reasonable transition from our current coal and natural gas energy dependence to renewable sources. I think a 10 -15- year plan is reasonable. Several renewable sources are already cost-effective. The phase period will provide time for current providers to amortize their fixed cost and transition to either renewables or install systems that greatly reduce emissions from existing plants. For more detail on this please refer to an earlier post titled: “Electricity Energy Sources: Costs, Emissions & Carbon Footprint”.

Considerable detail on these issues is provided in my book:

If you agree with most of my platform, please pass along the link to this blog and recommend that they review this week’s posting.

https://www.sophiessoapbox.com/