Repairing United States Welfare Programs

 

This excerpt from 'The 'The Captured State: Selected Statistics Show Harms of Wealth Concentration to American Life' discusses a new approach to social welfare spending and offers some hope for better outcomes.

'The question arises: can we spend our way out of our current political hatred and violence by making a more costly safety net for disadvantaged Americans?

 

We may find other countries with better safety nets and less political violence than the United States. We might learn from them. A corollary assumption is that countries with better safety nets spend more money on them than we do. However, the facts show that more spending, by itself, does not make things better.

 

We already spend as much per capita as most countries with better social welfare results. We spend enough money, we just don't spend it right. Chapter Z. Alternate Solutions to Social Welfare Problems on page 28 discusses different spending methods to improve our performance 

Expectations help determine the outcomes of social welfare programs as they do in educational institutions. The United States uses one set of expectations and shows poor social policy results. Some Nordic countries use a very different set of expectations and show better social policy results. [Page 14]

 

1. High Expectations in Social Welfare Programs [i]

 

Educational experiments show that students perform better when teachers have high expectations of them. Conversely, students do poorly when teachers have low expectations for them.

 

'The students of high expectation teachers show larger achievement gains, while the students of low expectation teachers make smaller or negative gains. The positive attitudes and equitable teaching practices of high expectation teachers also lead to higher levels of engagement, motivation and self-efficacy in students.'

 

United States social welfare programs appear to demonstrate low expectations of the recipients. Some programs may be modeled on the Southern Strategy to delay racial integration. ‘The Southern strategy [to integration] was one of holding out, of being so difficult, so painful to deal with that, hoping that the North would then do what it had done during Reconstruction, get disheartened and then leave.’  [ii]

 

Contrarily, welfare programs in other countries take the opposite approach of assuming that welfare recipients are family members who have fallen on hard times. The welfare program supports people as they move toward better circumstances.

 

2. United States’ Expectations

 

In our effort to reduce the inequality gap by transferring income and assets to the less fortunate among us, we make it hard to qualify for the programs and then we make it hard to prove your qualification.

 

Some people who need the assistance do not receive the aid available to them; and, in many cases, they fail to apply or complete the application.

 

Most ‘means tested’ welfare programs in the USA fail to deliver because many qualified recipients of the aid do not apply.

 

            ‘…avoidable and unavoidable costs, states' distorted incentives, and social norms are the major sources of impediments to benefits and that most of these impediments are embedded in or result from certain legal mechanisms of the welfare system. Law and Inequality: A Journal’[iii]

 

Many highly disadvantaged people do not apply for substantial benefits for which they are eligible by their circumstances.

 

 

           ‘An estimated 46 million Americans live below the poverty line. But millions aren’t covered by any of the welfare programs. Records show that 72% of people living in poverty received help from at least one welfare program. Among those living in deep poverty - an income that falls 50% below the poverty threshold - 70% received assistance, while the remaining 5.5 million people did not. At least 13 million people live in poverty and don’t receive any benefits from welfare programs.’ Urban Institute [iv]

 

‘Complaints of mistreatment in navigating the welfare state are commonplace, with most unpleasant encounters arising from interactions between welfare recipients and social workers. The dominant approach to social work was casework which emphasized the personal characteristics or moral deficiencies of the recipient rather than social reform. In some cases the said deficiency was grounds for denying assistance. Casework fostered a paternalistic and demeaning relationship between social workers and clients. Caseworkers are the persons who have the most opportunity for showing respect or   described not as much in terms of what they receive in their checks but rather in terms of the relationship that they have with their caseworker; a study found that the way in which a client was shown respect was often more important to the client than what the provider in the situation did to solve the client’s problems.’   Nadasen, Premilla (June 17, 2014). Welfare Warriors:’[v]

 

 

Most ‘means tested’ welfare programs in the USA fail to deliver because many qualified recipients of the aid do not apply. ‘…avoidable and unavoidable costs, states' distorted incentives, and social norms are the major sources of impediments to benefits and that most of these impediments are embedded in or result from certain legal mechanisms of the welfare system.’[vi] Many highly disadvantaged people do not apply for substantial benefits for which they are eligible by their circumstances.

---

 

1. High Expectations in Social Welfare Programs

 

[i] Effect of high expectations, Libretexts Social Sciences: [https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Education_and_Professional_Development/Foundations_of_Education_and_Instructional_Assessment_(Kidd_et_al.)/10%3A_Effective_Teaching/10.06%3A_What_is_the_effect_of_having_high_expectations_for_students#:~:text=Pygmalion%20Effect%20and%20Self%2DFulfilling%20Prophecy&text=If%20the%20student%20feels%20that,5).]

 

[ii]  Daily Stoic, Sep 21, 2023

 

2. United States’ Expectations

 

[iii] Source: Unwelcome Benefits: Why Welfare Beneficiaries Reject Government Aid?

Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 107, 2006

 

 

[iv] Five Things You May Not Know about the US Social Safety Net, Sarah Minton and Linda Giannarelli February 2019, [https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99674/five_things_you_may_not_know_about_the_us_social_safety_net_1.pdf]

 

 

[v] WIKIPEDIA,  Nadasen, Premilla (June 17, 2014). Welfare Warriors: The Welfare Rights Movement in the United States. Routledge. ISBN 9781136743696.

 

[vi]  Source: Unwelcome Benefits: Why Welfare Beneficiaries Reject Government Aid?

Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 107, 2006

 

  

ABSTRACT ‘The Captured State: Selected Statistics Show Harms of Wealth Concentration to American Life'

The United States formed July 4, 1776 as a sovereign state. Therefore, we have the right and duty to protect our Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic in a manner chosen by the people.

 Firing Squad. Adobe Stock images 

ABSTRACT ‘The Captured State: Selected Statistics Show Harms of Wealth Concentration to American Life'

This paper suggests that the historically large concentrations of wealth possessed in 2023 by American Billionaires and CEO's create a blockage in the United States, which interferes with our government's attempts to change existing laws and regulations. The concentration blocks effectively the law making process granted by the Constitution in 1789. Our constitution gave American citizens the right to vote as a check on attempts to bend our laws and regulations toward the personal favor of any person or group. However, today concentrated wealth collectively prevents Congress from adopting proposed laws or regulations that correspond to the will of citizens.

As a direct result of that blockage, Congress has been, and continues to be, unable to pass laws and regulations to benefit American voters' social well-being. The United States has fallen behind many other countries in most measures of Social well-being. The paper presents several measurements of social well being and compares the United States' scores to selected other countries.

Many countries with very large imbalances of incomes and wealth have suffered violent revolutions including the imprisonment and assassination of the rulers. 

Author: Mike P. McKeever; Founding Editor of the Oakland School of Economics Journal, est. 2021

Published in the Oakland School of Economics Journal December 2023.

The complete paper is here: : https://econoak.org/?page_id=1048

 

Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State’, By Donald P. Moynihan

Be worried now - 

By Donald P. Moynihan

I study government bureaucracies. This is not normally a key political issue. Right now, it is, and everyone should be paying attention.

Mr. Moynihan is a professor of public policy at Georgetown and an expert on the administrative state.

Donald Trump, the former president and current candidate, puts it in apocalyptic terms: “Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state.” This is not an empty threat. He has a real and plausible plan to utterly transform American government. It will undermine the quality of that government and it will threaten our democracy.

A second Trump administration would be very different from the first. Mr. Trump’s blueprint for amassing power has been developed by a constellation of conservative organizations that surround him, led by the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025. This plan would elevate personal fealty to Mr. Trump as the central value in government employment, processes and institutions.

It has three major parts.

The first is to put Trump loyalists into appointment positions. Mr. Trump believed that “the resistance” to his presidency included his own appointees. Unlike in 2016, he now has a deep bench of loyalists. The Heritage Foundation and dozens of other Trump-aligned organizations are screening candidates to create 20,000 potential MAGA appointees. They will be placed in every agency across government, including the agencies responsible for protecting the environment, regulating workplace safety, collecting taxes, determining immigration policy, maintaining safety net programs, representing American interests overseas and ensuring the impartial rule of law.

These are not conservatives reluctantly serving Mr. Trump out of a sense of patriotic duty, but those enthusiastic about helping a twice-impeached president who tried to overturn the results of an election. An influx of appointees like this would come at a cost to the rest of us. Political science research that examines the effects of politicization on federal agencies shows that political appointees, especially inexperienced ones, are associated with lower performance in government and less responsiveness to the public and to Congress.

The second part of the Trump plan is to terrify career civil servants into submission. To do so, he would reimpose an executive order that he signed but never implemented at the end of his first administration. The Schedule F order would allow him to convert many of these officials into political appointees.

Schedule F would be the most profound change to the civil service system since its creation in 1883. Presidents can currently fill about 4,000 political appointment positions at the federal level. This already makes the United States an outlier among similar democracies, in terms of the degree of politicization of the government. The authors of Schedule F have suggested it would be used to turn another 50,000 officials — with deep experience of how to run every major federal program we rely on — into appointees. Other Republican presidential candidates have also pledged to use Schedule F aggressively. Ron DeSantis, for example, promised that as president he would “start slitting throats on Day 1.”

Schedule F would be a catastrophe for government performance. Merit-based government personnel systems perform better than more politicized bureaucracies. Under the first Trump administration, career officials were more likely to quit when sidelined by political appointees.

Schedule F would also damage democracy. The framers included a requirement, in the Constitution itself, that public officials swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, a reminder to public employees that their deepest loyalty is to something greater than whoever occupies the White House or Congress. By using Schedule F to demand personal loyalty, Mr. Trump would make it harder for them to keep that oath.

When he was president, his administration frequently targeted officials for abuse, denial of promotions or investigations for their perceived disloyalty. In a second administration, he would simply fire them. Trump loyalists reportedly have lists ready of civil servants who will be fired because they were not deemed cooperative enough during his first term.

The third part of Mr. Trump’s authoritarian blueprint is to create a legal framework that would allow him to use government resources to protect himself, attack his political enemies and force through his policy goals without congressional approval. Internal government lawyers can block illegal or unconstitutional actions. Reporters for The New York Times have uncovered a plan to place Trump loyalists in those key positions.

This is not about conservatism. Mr. Trump grew disillusioned with conservative Federalist Society lawyers, despite drawing on them to stock his judicial nominations. It is about finding lawyers willing to create a legal rationale for his authoritarian impulses. Examples from Mr. Trump’s time in office include Mark Paoletta, the former general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, who approved Mr. Trump’s illegal withholding of aid to Ukraine. Or Jeffery Clark, who almost became Mr. Trump’s acting attorney general when his superiors refused to advance Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Mr. Clark is now under indictment for a “criminal attempt to communicate false statements and writings” to Georgia state officials. But he continues to lay the groundwork for a second Trump term. He has made the case for the president using military forces for domestic law enforcement. He has also written a legal analysis arguing that “the U.S. Justice Department is not independent,” while Mr. Paoletta told The Times, “I believe a president doesn’t need to be so hands-off with the D.O.J.” If government lawyers will not defend norms of Justice Department independence, Mr. Trump will use the department to shield himself from legal accountability and to pursue his enemies.

We sometimes think of democracy as merely the act of voting. But the operation of government is also democracy in action, a measure of how well the social contract between the citizen and the state is being kept. When values like transparency, legality, honesty, due process, fealty to the Constitution and competence are threatened in government offices, so too is our democracy. These democratic values would be eviscerated if Mr. Trump returns to power with an army of loyalists applying novel legal theories and imposing a political code of silence on potential holdouts.

Donald P. Moynihan is a professor of public policy at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University and the author, with Pamela Herd, of “Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means.”

The Captured State: Selected Statistics Show Harms of Wealth Concentration to American Life

All:   

You can read my latest article on the Oakland School of Economics Journal [www.econoak.org]. If you like it, tell your friends, if not, then tell me. Thanks in advance.

Here is the link to the OSE Journal page - open the page, scroll down to paper then click on the title of paper 

The Captured State: Selected Statistics Show Harms of Wealth Concentration to American Life 

Copy and paste this link :https://econoak.org/?page_id=1048

A teaser:

Prequel: A Declaration [Rant?]

 Now listen up, all you American Billionaires and CEO's:

 Enough………

 You have taken most of what we have.

 It is enough for you. We want some of it back. We are coming for you.  [i]

 You take our wages and cross too many lines.

 You control the law making system and you, and only you, can fix the country. Without you letting loose some control, our laws cannot fix our problems today. If you choose to help us, we can fix America together. [ii]

You cannot escape your responsibility for our plight: with your great wealth comes your greater responsibility.  You cannot avoid acting because doing nothing is making a choice to continue as we are today.

We CAN change with your help. Without you, the end-result will be violence against you.

You want to install a Dictator who works for Vladimir Putin. If you succeed, then he will steal all our liberty and our property, yours and mine. You will not escape him. [iii]

You call it ‘competitive advantage’ when you find loopholes in the laws to steal our incomes.. [iv]

You threaten our National Security by creating disastrous extremes of income and wealth.

About 10% to 20% of us live in hunger and fear. Some among the rest of us have little peace or rest.

You poison our air and our water and you kill the planet we call home.

You shoot to ‘kill/death’ thousands of us every year.

 'In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC’  [v]

 You won. Congratulations.

 Now, look around: many Americans suffer privation and desperation. They may resort to violence against you as happened to the Russian Romanovs, Saddam Hussein, French nobility and a long list of murdered tyrants. Our Deal can save you.

 You can choose your legacy: You can be a modern Alfred Nobel or Rockefeller.  Or, you will be an evil tyrant like industrialist Henry Clay Frick or Germany’s Quandt family, who own BMW.[vi]

 We want to make a deal. Understand that we will come for you even if there is no deal. We will not be happy if we must come when there is no deal.

 The deal: You agree to pay higher income taxes sufficient to balance our budget, retire the national debt over time and fix our social policies. Just tell your Congressional minions it is OK to raise our income taxes and expand social programs.

 In return, let you live and keep your assets, just like the New Deal of FDR from 1930. It is what we want today.

 With you, we can balance the Federal budget and pay down the debt by raising tax revenues instead of simply cutting benefit expenditures.

       Eisenhower explained it this way: ‘The super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. They could give a million or two to tax-exempt non-profits that feed, house and clothe poor people of America, among other things. They did some of that, but the Eisenhower years generated enough taxes to launch and complete the labyrinth of interstate highways, the largest road project America had ever seen and is needed again.' Dave Peyton, AP news [vii]

 However, instead you choose to maximize your wealth. You tell your Senators and Representatives, or even a SCOTUS judge: 'Kill any proposed laws or regulations which might benefit working people, then approve any laws which reduce income and wealth taxes.'

 CNBC says: 63% of American workers are unable to pay a $500 emergency expense.  [viii]

 You know a storm is coming: you see MAGA violence in the political process. Mob thugs have not come for you … yet.

 You became very rich when you ordered lower income taxes. The US Treasury borrows more money to pay our bills, instead of using income tax revenue from you to pay. We borrow so that you do not have to pay income taxes. That steals from my grandchildren and future, unborn generations; it must stop.

NOTES Prequel: A Declaration [Rant?]

 [i]  Robert Reich [https://robertreich.substack.com/p/billionaires-dont-have-a-right-to]

 [ii]   These Days, the Very Rich Are Very Selfish. It Could Get Ugly. By Guido Alfani, NYT Nov 19, 2023; Mr. Alfani is an economic history professor at Bocconi University in Milan. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/19/opinion/rich-billionaires-philanthropy-covid.html]

 [iii] PUTIN'S PEOPLE: HOW THE KGB TOOK BACK RUSSIA AND THEN TOOK ON THE WEST, Catherine Belton, 2020, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York

 [iv]

THE SCHEME: HOW THE RIGHT WING USED DARK MONEY TO CAPTURE THE SUPREME COURT, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Jennifer Mueller, 2022, The New Press, New York.

 [v] Pew Research Center publishes gun deaths in the US:

[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/]

 [vi] 

 Rich People From History Who Committed Shady and Evil Deeds - Khalid Elhassan - April 12, 2022, History Collection

 a. Henry Clay Frick.

 In 1880, industrialist Henry Clay Frick and a group of rich Pittsburgh magnates bought the South Fork Dam, an earthen dam that formed an artificial Lake Conemaugh in Cambria County. ...because when the dam was built, it had a system of relief pipes and valves to lower water levels in an emergency. That system had been sold as scrap metal, and never replaced. Between that and the clogged spillway, there was no way to release water in case of an emergency. Such an emergency occurred on May 31st, 1889, and it killed thousands in what came to be known as the Johnstown Flood, after the chief town struck by the disaster.’

 b. Quandt Family, BMW

 BMW. Less known is that its major shareholders, the seriously rich Quandt family, were close friends and admirers of Hitler and the Nazis.

 The study commissioned by the Quandt family resulted in a 1200-page report that concluded: “[t]he Quandts were linked inseparably with the crimes of the Nazis … The family patriarch was part of the regime“. Among other things, the Quandts profited from the Nazis’ “Aryanization Program”, which stripped Jews of their property and turned it over to Germans approved by the new regime. BMW’s owners benefitted greatly from Aryanization: dozens of businesses were seized from rich Jews and handed over to the already rich Quandts.

 [https://historycollection.com/rich-people-from-history-who-committed-shady-and-evil-deeds/]

 [vii] BY DAVE PEYTON Published 10:28 PM PST, January 30, 2019 [https://apnews.com/article/2184e9f18f6f4acca1ed007bdcdca818]

 [viii]  CNBC Survey shows that many working Americans are a single expense away from homelessness.

 [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-unable-to-pay-a-500-emergency-expense-survey.html#:~:text=To%20that%20point%2C%2063%25%20of,employers%20provide%20emergency%20savings%20benefits]

DDOS

Several scumbags hacked my computer via this page.

To scumbag hackers : You want to know something, just ask me............

Otherwise, go to hell.

Putin's Plan for the USA

We are in the middle of a hostile takeover of the United States of America by Vladimir Putin.

I do not say it is a takeover by Russia because Putin is simply a greedy and violent tyrant, acting for his own purposes while ignoring the will of Russian people. Russian voices keep silent today because Putin murders or imprisons his political opponents.

I outline Putin's Plan below. Historians and Political Scientists know his plan well, but few Americans know it.

Putin wants to seize control of the United States without an invasion. Stalin and the USSR used this plan to seize and control most of the Republics in the USSR. Putin is adapting it for today's world.

Putin recognizes, as did Stalin, three classes of people inside any country he wishes to control.

Class 1 : Assets

Class 2 : Useful Idiots

Class 3 : Enemies of the State.

Assets are people bought and paid for by Putin to help in the hostile takeover coup. Trump is a Putin asset, on Putin's payroll. Ceausescu was a Stalin asset. The asset wants to eliminate any forces that stand in his way: Courts, legislatures, Police, Armed Forces and any principled person who tries to stop the takeover. 

Useful idiots are naïve people who agree with the propaganda about the takeover and help Putin's asset seize control. The AltRight and extreme GOP congress members are useful idiots.

Everyone else is an Enemy of the State. Enemies of the State can live so long as they contribute to the Putin's goals. 

We can save the United States from this coup by recognizing and opposing all of its actions. We can succeed, but we must act to oppose it relentlessly. 

This message was available in other forums but it cannot be repeated often enough. 

Solving the Homeless Crisis

While California makes a good start on the question, Governor Newsom's new plan is just a first step. 

READ NEWSOM'S PLAN

Finland has a better approach.

FINLAND PREFACE

 

‘Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020). A key pillar of this effort has been to combine emergency assistance with the supply of rentals to host previously homeless people, either by converting some existing shelters into residential buildings with independent apartments (Kaakinen, 2019) or by building new flats by a government agency (ARA, 2021).’

 

FINLAND BODY

 

‘Finland’s Zero Homeless Strategy: Lessons from a Success Story; December 13, 2021

 

By Laurence Boone, Boris Cournède, OECD Economics Department; and Marissa Plouin, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs

 

Following a period when homelessness rose in many countries, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments across the OECD area to provide unprecedented public support – including to the homeless. In the United Kingdom, for instance, people who had been living on the streets or in shelters were housed in individual accommodations in a matter of days. And in cities and towns across the OECD, public authorities worked closely with service providers and other partners to provide support to the homeless that had previously been considered impossible. 

 

How can countries build on this momentum and ensure more durable outcomes? The experience of Finland over the past several decades – during which the country has nearly eradicated homelessness – provides a glimpse of what can be possible with a sustained national strategy and enduring political will. 

 

The number of homeless people in Finland has continuously decreased over the past three decades from over 16 000 in 1989 to around 4 000, or 0.08% of the population (Figure 1). This is a very low number, especially considering that Finland uses a relatively broad definition of homelessness, whereby in particular it includes people temporarily living with friends and relatives in its official homelessness count. In 2020, practically no-one was sleeping rough on a given night in Finland. 

 

Figure 1. Homelessness has shrunk remarkably in Finland

 

 Source: Report 2021: Homelessness in Finland 2020, The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA).

 

 

This is undoubtedly a remarkable success, even if comparing homelessness statistics across countries is fraught with difficulties (OECD, 2020). Many homeless people live precariously, with the implication that statistical tools such as household surveys typically fail to accurately measure their living conditions. Furthermore, countries define homelessness very differently, for instance counting people who temporarily live with friends or relatives as homeless (as Finland does) or excluding them from homelessness statistics. While there is no OECD-wide average against which to compare Finland’s homeless rate of 0.08%, other countries with similarly broad definitions of homelessness provide points of reference, such as neighbouring Sweden (0.33%) or the Netherlands (0.23%).1

 

Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020). A key pillar of this effort has been to combine emergency assistance with the supply of rentals to host previously homeless people, either by converting some existing shelters into residential buildings with independent apartments (Kaakinen, 2019) or by building new flats by a government agency (ARA, 2021). Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending. 

 

The Finnish experience demonstrates the effectiveness of tackling homelessness through a combination of financial assistance, integrated and targeted support services and more supply: using just one of these levers is unlikely to work. Financial assistance comes from the social benefits systems, which includes a housing allowance for low-income people (mostly jobless persons with no or low unemployment benefits) covering about 80% of housing costs (Kangas and Kalliomaa-Puha, 2019). Emergency social assistance funding can complement the housing allowance if it is insufficient. Social services provide housing before other interventions that are targeted to beneficiaries’ needs (such as, to pick one example, providing health services to help overcome substance abuse). These efforts require dwellings: investment grants by Finland’s Housing Finance and Development Centre financed the construction of 2 200 flats over 2016-19 for long-term homeless people (ARA, 2021). Indeed, investing in housing development should be a priority for OECD governments as they navigate the recovery from the crisis: over the past two decades, public investment in housing development has dropped to just 0.06% of GDP across the OECD on average (OECD, 2021b).

 

Another important driver of Finland’s success is the integration of efforts to fight homelessness with other parts of the social safety net. When a housing need is identified in any part of the social service system, housing is provided first, to provide a solid basis for employment, long-term health and/or family assistance (OECD, 2020). This integrated approach avoids the pitfalls that can arise, for instance, when benefits are preconditioned on having an address, or when obtaining a flat requires a minimum income. There are indications that, by facilitating the integration of previously homeless people in society, the upfront Finnish investment that provides people with housing first, pays off by reducing subsequent costs incurred by social services. Evaluations point to annual savings in public expenditure in the range of EUR 9 600-15 000 per person who had previously experienced homelessness (Y-Foundation, 2017; Ministry of the Environment, 2011). 

 

Overall, Finland’s achievements illustrate the benefits of integration, balance and continuity in policies to tackle homelessness: integration across housing and social assistance programmes, balance between demand and supply, and political continuity over time have helped to maximise the results of the country’s investment to end homelessness. Not only has this approach resulted in a steady decline in homelessness, but it has also made the system more resilient to shocks, including the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, the pandemic was less of a strain to Finland’s homeless support system compared to other countries, given that many vulnerable people were already housed and supported in individual flats (Fondation Abbé Pierre – FEANTSA, 2021). 

 

These lessons can be transposed to other OECD countries as they look to build on the momentum and lessons learned from the COVID crisis.

 

https://oecdecoscope.blog/2021/12/13/finlands-zero-homeless-strategy-lessons-from-a-success-story/

 

By Laurence Boone, Boris Cournède, OECD Economics Department; and Marissa Plouin, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs ‘

 

 

NEW Book Publication Announcement

My recent college textbook 'Macroeconomic Essentials: College Macroeconomic Textbook for Undergraduates Kindle Edition, 2020'  is now available for $5.99 on Amazon Kindle by clicking here

When I began teaching economics to college students in the 1980’s, I chose to concentrate on the core ideas in the discipline. I found many textbooks attempt to explain those core ideas with detailed expositions of supporting concepts. Occasionally students bog down in the supporting ideas and lose track of the central themes. Most students benefit from a pared down approach; they can grasp the central ideas and how those ideas interact.

I am recently retired from my career as Professor of Economics at City College of San Francisco.

ADVISORY FOR CCSF STUDENTS: This Kindle Edition does NOT contain the MANDATORY quizzes for each Textbook Chapter available only on the CCSF Approved Edition textbook through Great River Learning; please contact me if you require the CCSF edition.

Here is a sample student review:  5.0 out of 5 stars

 Essential Book On Macroeconomics!

Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2021

When I first started reading Professor McKeevers's book Macroeconomic Essentials I had no idea what macro economics was. Understanding economics seemed daunting and I was worried I wasn't going to able to understand how economy works. After reading each chapter and taking the quizzes I felt more confident when explaining economic theories, cycles, formulas, etc. He writes in a clear and concise manner that allows the reader to understand the principles of Macroeconomics. I recommend this book to anyone trying to understand Macroeconomics.

 

Read the Full Gag Order

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.

 * * * * * * * * CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)

Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 19

Gag Order text here  

Complete Fulton County Grand jury report

The Fulton County Grand jury report is public now, see it at link below:

Read the Fulton County Grand Jury report  

UPDATE - Reality Now Behind the Stats

Carjackers: 

 S F Bay area, Calif. (KRON) — Carjackers armed with guns have been searching for targets in Castro Valley. They find a victim backing her car out of her driveway in one incident recorded on a neighbor’s surveillance cameras.

The surveillance video shows armed carjackers roaming the streets early Tuesday morning looking for victims.  From: [http://opr.news/6cf023a6230817en_us?link=1&client=news]

Thieves:

Sharing what occurred to my husband and I Sunday evening about 11:50 PM. I was up watching Netflix and heard a pop sound in front of my house where I park my car. Looked through the blinds and saw a black crossover type vehicle parked next to my car. They were actually blocking the street at the intersection stop sign since I live in a corner house. Witnessed two men dressed in all black with masks and a flashlight touching and circling my car. Very organized and ‘professional’ in their approach with a ‘this is a real job’ demeanor. I shouted, “Get away from my fckn car!” as I dialed 911. They responded, “What? Are you going to come out and fight? Shut up and stay inside.” They definitely were attempting to steal my car, then broke the front passenger window to look through my glove compartment. I replied, “Police are on their way if you wanna meet them!” Then my husband and I remained inside and watched them continue to try to steal my car. Felt sick just watching them helplessly. They shined a flashlight in our direction from where they could hear my voice. They couldn’t see us, got back in their car, and drove off toward E 14th. Less than a minute, police car rolled up. Did the report and got my case number. Cop found their screwdriver on his way back to patrol car. Got the window fixed Monday morning. One thing I learned from the police officer - they’re looking in glove compartments for the car manual in hope that they’ll find a valet key. Too late, manual was stolen in Spring 2022 when my car was broken into. This last break in/attempted car theft is the third time in 18 months for my car. I’m grateful my husband and I weren’t hurt but I’m overwhelmed with concern about how much more egregious crime will get in our neighborhood. Feeling defeated. SMDH

Another party offers some suggestions:

Do not confront criminals who are pointing guns or knives at you. Let them have your property. Your property can be replaced but if you get killed, game over. Your property is not worth your physical safety especially your life.   

Two sad examples not involving weapons but getaway cars and the property owners were killed trying to hold onto their property.

A local bakery owner held onto her purse or business day's cash, she was dragged by the robber's car and she died most likely of head injuries. A young software engineer was at a Starbucks coffee shop outside at a table working on his laptop computer and someone walked up and stole his laptop. The young man ran after the thief, held onto the getaway car, was dragged, and he died most likely because of his head injuries. Criminals do not care about your physical safety considering they are in the process of stealing your purse, cash, laptop computer or cell phone. Install a PIN code or password protect your cell phone so the criminals cannot use the stolen phone. 

The screenshot is credited to KR--. I was unable to share the video.

The woman in the video is confronted by two armed men for her purse. She refuses to hand over her purse and she is pistol whipped in the head. Unfortunately and instinctively the woman holds on to her purse strap and she is dragged on the ground. Behind the car, she could have been further kicked by the criminals to release the purse. According to the news report the woman was taken to and treated at a local hospital. The criminals were probably driving all over Oakland committing strong armed robberies. Even if you are a trained martial artist or have taken self-defense classes there is no defense against one or more criminals with guns.

Copied from NextDoor app. Names redacted.

Billionaires: It was You

It was you.

You Billionaires, CEO's and racists have a stranglehold on the economy and our political processes. You are so rich that you can do pretty much whatever you want. Apparently the thing you want is 'more'; you don't have an 'enough' button.

You use political violence and threats about crimes and minorities so we won't notice what you do.

You take our money in 1,000 ways and hope we don't notice. 

It was you.

We will understand soon that Transsexual children and ethnic minorities did not take away our hope for the future. 

You use fear about minorities to distract us from what you are really doing.

What you do is steal from us. 

It was you.

trump and other racists have introduced political violence into America. You see political violence and you are afraid.

You fear that we will come for you in your bunkers and yachts, just like citizens in other countries have done before, i.e. Bolsheviks, American Revolutionary Army, French rebellion, Chinese peasants on Mao Tse Tung's long March, etc., etc.

It was you.

We have the theoretical right in the Constitution to elect people who will correct the inequalities and give us back our hope.

But you lobby actively against government programs that help working people.

You can hope that we will be quiet and fail to notice what you are doing. 

OR, perhaps we will notice and come for you.

It was you.

This confluence of events has happened before in the United States. It is not new. 

We learn from history that we can avoid a violent revolution.

It can be you.

Here is your way out:

FDR faced a similarly divided country when he entered office in March 1933. The Great Depression was in full swing and large parts of the population were suffering greatly. Our security was compromised severely. War clouds were gathering in Europe and Asia. The Russian Revolution was just about 20 years old. The Chinese Civil War began in 1927 and lasted until 1949. US unemployment was about 25 %; Americans were forced from their farms due to the Dust Bowl and many migrated West searching for some relief.

FDR wanted to provide relief for Americans' sufferings and he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for his programs and give the people some hope. But the rich few balked at raising taxes and did not want to provide any relief to suffering Americans. Eventually FDR made a deal with the few whereby they allowed the income tax rate to go up with the proviso that there would be no tax on wealth and that taxes would be reduced when the population was better off. Keynes' book was not published until 1936 and therefore FDR was not able to suggest deficit financing to provide relief with borrowed funds.

 

It can be you.

Those higher taxes and the increased regulation on businesses paid for World War 2 and the post war rebuilding of our infrastructure. But, along about the late 1960's and early 1970's, the rich began to resent their 'tax burden and regulation burden' since the country had been rebuilt and a global peace was more secure.

They instructed their Senators and Representatives to reduce their taxes and hamstring regulations. The marginal income tax rate that was in the 79% and 80% level while we rebuilt the country was lowered to today's less than 40%.

It can be you.

The Georgia Indictment - 'Yep. He's a defendant'

Here's a link to the full text:   Indictment Complete 

''As inequality grows, ...the poor and rich classes expand.'

The Effects of Inequality on Global Economic Growth*

Gerry Greaves, 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1945712/v1

Abstract  below - full paper here: Effects of Inequality on Economic Growth

Abstract

'Previous efforts to determine the effect of inequality on growth, which relied on comparing growth rates of countries (or the same country over time) with different levels of inequality, have met with limited success. This paper provides a novel economic model that combines a Solow growth model with a closed 3-Equation model which includes the effects of inequality on consumer demand and thus growth. It models consumer demand using four income classes with different tax rates and propensities to consume whose sizes and incomes are determined by the level of inequality. It allows a wide range of inequality to be evaluated. This quantifies the effect of inequality on growth, but it also reveals its effects on interest rates and government spending guiding fiscal and monetary policy.

Among the unprecedented findings are 1) The maximum GDP growth occurs at a Gini coefficient of about 0.66 unless negative nominal interest rates or ongoing deficit spending is allowed; 2) Gini coefficients above 0.66 result in drastically reduced GDP caused by insufficient demand; 3) Below this point, there is excess demand which causes upward pressure on inflation and results in higher nominal interest rates; 4) At the current global Gini coefficient of about 0.62, real interest rates are near zero; 5) As inequality grows, the middle and upper middle classes shrink while the poor and rich classes expand.'

This is a preprint review and has not been peer reviewed.  License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  

U.S. Inequality is Stark. The Danger of Violence is Real

Misery is near the boiling point in the U.S. (See below for a few facts) We are near a choice point, namely -  Tax reform to reduce the inequality that is destroying the middle class OR violent revolution to overthrow a profoundly unjust system.

Do you dare imagine you are safe? That fork in the road could be sticking into you. 

For ours and their own survival (and the survival of our American Republic) the moneyed and political elite must cooperate in the non-violent, legal reform of the tax code to correct the inequality that threatens our national security. During the Great Depression, a time of severe inequality and fear of popular revolution, FDR made a deal with the rich to accept their responsibility and allow change. It worked then and can work again. 

How unequal are we? The bottom half of the population owns a mere 2.4 percent of the wealth. The top 0.1 percent (335,000 people) own 12.8 percent of the wealth. A whopping 70 percent of the wealth is owned by only 10 percent of the people. [per statista.com/statistics/]

The top 10 percenters are now responsible for the condition of the country, because only their excess wealth can relieve the misery taking the U.S. on a dangerous downward spiral. 

How miserable are we 335 million Americans? 

Hungry: 34 million, including 9 million children 

Flat broke, no savings: 16.5 million 

Homeless: 582,000 as of 2022 

Mentally ill: 57.8 million 

Incarcerated: 1.2 million 

Can anyone who pays attention say the U.S. is in fine shape and life here is growing more secure and more satisfying?

Why use the tax code to remedy our dangerous inequality? It would be legitimate under public law. Congress and its tax and banking committees do in fact see and fear the danger of violent revolution as the U.S. grows more like a Third World society where the tiny elite at the top own everything for their own benefit, and the public be damned. 

The dangerously unjust system we have now comes from government policies that have been called “Socialism for the wealthy; Capitalism for the poor.” Those who want it that way pay for it with political money that buys a compliant Congress. 

The choice is stark: Give up (or give back) some of that wealth through legal tax and banking reform or face lethal consequences. Any such action of consequence will jeopardize the National Security of the United States. Violent revolution is bad for everyone, even the wealthy hiding in gated communities and underground bunkers.

BONA FIDES

I have been an observer of the public discussions about the National Security of the United States since I began graduate school in 1963. My M Sc. [Econ] work at the London School of Economics [LSE] was to examine the national security challenges posed by the Soviet Union. I do not have a security clearance, so my work is limited to public media.

During the 1960’s and 1970’s our security was challenged by the weapons and philosophy of the USSR. We championed Free Market Capitalism and Liberal Democracy as the better choice than the rigidly planned Socialist State of the Soviet Union. However, the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the 1980’s demonstrated that both national security and economic well-being require markets free from excessive regulation or other market constraints such as monopoly, which can limit innovation.  

U.S. wealth helps support extensive R&D which helps create more wealth. New prosperity often comes from what is new, better or different. Freedom and the Rule of Law promote innovation with a shared agreement to limit the abuses from excess concentration of wealth and power. 

THE LESSONS

Economic strength, not military weapons, is the basis for national security. While a strong military adds to our sense of national security, that strength comes from a strong economy that delivers prosperity to all citizens and residents regardless of their class, race, immigration status or other traits. For example, German industrialization in the decades before World War I created a prosperous work force and a strong military which enabled the Kaiser to boldly plunge Europe into the Great War.

THE RISKS TODAY

Now organized groups in the United States (both visible and hidden) want to eliminate those protective restraints on wealth and power in favor of authoritarian control by the self-serving few. If the authoritarian, anti-democratic forces succeed here, the result will be a world catastrophe. 

Some who are sympathetic or indifferent to the concentrations of power and loss of freedom may imagine that a strong man authoritarian will respect their wealth and position. They may believe they are safe to support any political program as no threat to their personal well-being. 

These people are deluded. Dictators consider all property and business as their own. Since they deem your business their own, they will do with your property as they want. The autocrat may punish your company on a whim. He may fine you, sue you, or install a crony as your boss to force you out. Or like Putin does routinely, kill you.

Those at the top of the economic pyramid must resist any program that further weakens or ends restraints on the concentration of wealth and power in only a few hands. Left in place, this profound inequality poses the real risk of an armed and violent rebellion. Again, the extremely unequal distribution of income and wealth challenges our National Security today.

FDR SOLUTION

FDR faced a similar situation in the 1930s. He inherited the Great Depression together with great inequalities. (Unemployment reached 25 percent in 1933.) He wanted to reduce the general misery and provide people some hope. But the wealthy few did not want to give anything at all to the people. He proposed a deal for the rich: “I’ll raise your taxes to support labor unions, Social Security, rural electrification, WPA and other programs to lift the country out of despair. Then I can prevent a Bolshevik-style uprising in the United States.”

Among FDR’s persuasive arguments: The Russian Revolution was less than 20 years before. The rich few took the deal and allowed Congress to pass the laws installing New Deal programs that gave the people hope. The rich few paid for those programs with higher taxes. 

20TH CENTURY

Taxes stayed high between the 1930’s and the late 1960’s. In those years we fought World War II, which cost an estimated 80 million lives or about 3 percent of the world’s 2.3 billion people in 1940. We used the post-war prosperity of the 1950’s and 1960’s to build the infrastructure of roads, schools and public buildings we have today. 

During the early 1970’s, the rich few balked at continuing to pay high taxes to support social welfare programs. The marginal tax rate was maxed at about 39 percent compared to the top rate of 91 percent as late as 1963. (Marginal tax rates began to fall in 1964 but were still at 50 percent in 1986. The lowest postwar rate was 28 percent in 1988-1990. While the current rate is 37 percent, the tax code is filled with exceptions, loopholes and subsidies that favor those at the top.)

SOLUTION TODAY

The rich few should allow the Congress to adopt the Nordic model of the welfare state. By doing so, they can keep their current wealth, pay some more taxes and forestall the rising authoritarianism and political violence that threatens to sweep them away with other historical elites who believed they would win everything for all time.

 With Dennis Briskin

Billionaires and CEO's Allow Congress to Damage USA Credit Rating

 

Markets Still Weigh the Meaning of a U.S. Credit Rating Cut

By Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ravi Mattu, Sarah Kessler, Michael J. de la Merced, Lauren Hirsch and Ephrat Livni, Aug. 3, 2023, 7:54 a.m. ET, New York Times

White House officials, economists and some prominent Wall Street leaders said the move, which took the U.S. rating to AA+ because of concerns about growing federal deficits and political polarization, was puzzling and wouldn’t have much impact. But others have said Fitch’s move, while largely symbolic, still points to long-term troubles for the nation and its fiscal health.

The U.S. is unlikely to regain its pristine rating any time soon. Richard Francis, Fitch’s primary U.S. analyst, told The Times that a key factor behind the downgrade was America’s intense partisanship, which had led to standoffs on the debt ceiling and forestalls any efforts to reach agreement on taxes or on increasing federal spending.

“There is no willingness on any side to really tackle the underlying challenges,” Mr. Francis said.

But “it doesn’t really matter much,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s C.E.O., told CNBC yesterday, echoing a common refrain to Fitch’s move. Critics of the move noted that according to criteria laid out last year by Fitch itself, including debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and macroeconomic performance, the U.S. was improving.

Indeed, investors aren’t considered likely to dump their Treasury holdings, given how central U.S. government debt is to global markets. (That’s especially helpful because the Treasury Department plans to issue more debt in the coming months.)

White House officials were surprised by Fitch’s move, believing that they had persuaded the agency’s analysts not to downgrade, according to The Washington Post. The administration scrambled to coordinate a response to Fitch’s move, including noting that the Fitch report dinged the U.S. for governance failures under Donald Trump that, it said, had actually improved under President Biden.

Among Biden administration officials’ worries is that the downgrade could become a political weapon, amid Republican criticisms about federal spending. Indeed, Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that Biden had “pushed America’s credit rating off the ledge” — even though Fitch said that both parties had contributed to the problems outlined in its report.

Still, some think the points raised by Fitch are valid. Two former Treasury secretaries, Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, urged Washington to tame growing federal deficits: “Our fiscal trajectory is concerning,” Mr. Paulson told Bloomberg Television, while Mr. Geithner warned that “you want to move the system to act before it’s late and hard.”

And Quincy Krosby, the chief global strategist for LPL Financial, told Bloomberg: “Ultimately, if the deficit isn’t contained, taxes will be raised to the point that the engine of the US economy — the all-important consumer — will have considerably less discretionary income.”

In other Washington news, the hedge fund mogul Bill Ackman said he’s betting against 30-year Treasury notes, a bearish move, believing U.S. inflation will hover around an elevated 3 percent.

Read the Complete Criminal Indictment of D. J. Trump for January 6 Insurrection

Here is a link to the complete criminal indictment of D. J. Trump 

Read the complete indictment here

Elon Musk Compromises the National Security of the United States

There are many ways that Billionaires harm the National Security. Here's one: 

'The tech billionaire [Elon Musk] has become the dominant power in satellite internet technology. The ways he is wielding that influence are raising global alarms.'

By Adam Satariano, Scott Reinhard, Cade Metz, Sheera Frenkel and Malika Khurana July 28, 2023, N Y Times

Click Here StarLink NYTimes to see interactive maps of satellites. May be a paywall.