Finish sealing border -- forget about harmless few who slip by -- solved!

 14 million illegals could mostly be assumed to be socially entangled average with three other American residents (family, best friends, close business associates, etc.)  – in the neighborhood of 50 million residents deeply linked! – 14% of our entire population! – about to have their vital social fabric ripped apart by ICE.

For what purpose?

We could just seal the border for real this time – and start from scratch – the illegals already here cause no harm.  
 * * * * * *

“A well known Macoupin County restaurant owner from Mexico who was arrested by ICE in Illinois after dropping his children off at school in October”…  A few days after his arrest, nearly 300 people in Staunton rallied in Sandoval’s support..”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/illinois-restaurant-owner-detained-by-ice-after-dropping-kids-at-school-gets-deported-to-mexico/ar-AA1TjeBB    

“In March, Elena* said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported her husband, leaving her to care for their six children in Chicago… “
https://www.injusticewatch.org/archive/2021/left-behind-deportation-collateral-consequences/

“Chicago Raid: Agents rappelled from a helicopter to raid an apartment complex “filled” with Tren de Aragua gangsters. ProPublica found little to support the government’s claims.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/chicago-venezuela-immigration-ice-fbi-raids-no-criminal-charges 
 * * * * * *

My mother’s father came ashore here from Ireland a hundred years ago – waded through all the standard naturalizing procedures …
                                                                       
… then, opened a speakeasy (illegal alcohol imbibing establishment).  

How much is our social contract warped by these across the board exceptions?   These days we understand the evolution of social INSTINCT holds us together.  Consensus is a major part of that.

That leaves the private sector labor market to worry about – with some immigrant workers willing to work for half as much as legal residents.  50% of all American private sector workers say they want a union – only 6% of have a union.  That’s a problem ten or maybe a hundred times worse than anything caused by immigration …

 … and easily repaired by one simple, common-sense federal statute that should have been part of our social contract long ago.

https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/  
 * * * * * *

If 2028 rolls around w/o any serious moves in the direction of mandatory labor union votes issue, I'm going to Vegas to tip sharpsters to bet on the Dem candidate if odds are against -- and then proclaim the Dem mandatory-cert/recert/decert union issue -- which should move move all the chips over to the Dem side.

I've already dropped this thermo hot, trick-bet maneuver on 25 gambler-authors/publications -- and emailed it to sixty addresses at @reviewjournal.com.

... then opened a speakeasy ... 3,000 a day, EVERY DAY, for 14 years ...

I like to say that my mother's father came over here from Ireland 100 something years ago and did everything right to acquire citizenship ...

... and then opened a speakeasy.

When too many people want something that is basically good for them, the law cannot really drive them away (should not anyway).

ICE has announced collaring 600+ folks, in five days, in North Carolina, most seeking only productive work.  It would take more like 3,000 a day, EVERY DAY, for 14 years to execute Trump's impossible dream (14,000,000 deportations).

Meantime, tens or maybe hundreds of MILLIONS of decent, humane protestors will desperately crowd the streets in front of ICE's lockups.

10 AIRLINERS A DAY! -- FOR 14 YEARS!

 

WHY DOESN'T IT OCCUR TO EVERYBODY THAT IF TRUMP DEPORTS ONE MILLION UNDOCUMENTED A YEAR -- THAT MEANS 80,000 A MONTH FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO REACH 14 MILLION (14 YEARS) -- 10 LARGE AIRLINERS A DAY (FOR 14 YEARS) -- WITH ICE RAISING HELL IN 20,30, MAYBE 40 CITIES AT ONCE (FOR WHAT SEEMS LIKE FOREVER).

 

ANYBODY KNOW A COUNTRY WILLING TO TAKE 80,000 AMERICAN DEPORTEES A MONTH?

 

When we think about it, shipping out 14 million people is probably the biggest crackpot scheme ever proposed in this country (to borrow one of Donald's greatest this, greatest that, greatest of all time phrases).

BUT IT'S THE LAW!  Sometimes the law has to give way human reality.  Anybody ever hear of prohibition?  Outlawing Alcohol became the biggest law ever ignored for the impossibility of reining in insistent human nature. 

I have always accepted our immigration enforcement -- or lack of enforcement -- as screening out all but the most energetic and most intelligent.  We cannot just open our borders -- our population would double.  But the way our system was working seemed to me just about the most practicable we could do.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/celebrating-americas-spirit-of-innovation/10

My maternal grandfather was a legal immigrant.  He owned and operated a speakeasy during prohibition.  Anybody shocked or scandalized -- or would most rather follow human nature's demanding instincts even when they are not a perfect match for the social contract?

I think grandpa's joint was on 30th Street in Manhattan, just west of 5th Ave.  When he went legit, I think he moved to same street, other side of 5th.

Forever war on the undocumented -- everywhere at once?!

 Does it ever occur to anyone that, if Trump is going to evict a million illegals a year (he says), there's enough of them to keep a "forever war" going for 14 years ...

 ... possibly in all 50 states or 150 "A" cities, at once?!

 Get that across to people -- and maybe they will finally catch on to what a macro-fool he is.   All sounds like fun, doesn't it?

 - - - - - -

 

 "Nearly a quarter of FBI’s roughly 13,000 agents across the country are currently assigned to immigration enforcement, with the number climbing to upward of 40 percent in the nation’s largest field offices ... "

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ar-AA1O5UFQ

BET Democrat -- VOTE Democrat!

Comes to mind that gamblers wage literally billions of dollars on US elections -- most especially presidential -- and they would care frantically if an issue had the potential to turn the odds upside down.  Spread the idea in the gambling world that Democrats may be supporting mandated union votes -- watch the bettors "panic-ally" shove all their chips on the Dems.  Then bounce that gambling story to the political world -- maybe the political world will finally catch on to what a killer political issue legally mandated labor union votes would be.

My theory why the political participants don't wake up to the thermonuclear potential of this issue is that it must be blamed om some some kind of social mechanics built into our brains  -- we look at the gauntlet American workers have to run to organize and we think that is the "natural" condition or something (I really cannot delineate "something") and ....

... all I can come up with to work around "something" is to convert the social equation (politics) into a mechanical equation (gambling) -- wherein  the power of the mandated election issue is revealed spectacularly clearly.

https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

No way Trump can back it

Back the Donald into an inescapable anti-labor corner.  Poll support for federally mandated, labor union cert/recert/decert elections in every private workplace.

No way he can back it: forever exposed.

Would fill in the biggest remaining gap in our would-be social-democracy.  Just what everybody wants -- if they ever hear of it.  Just ask them! 

https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

Mmm:  is this issue the perfect, easy path to flipping red seats blue faster that Trump-led redistricting can flip blue seats red? 

PS:  https://www.commondreams.org/news/texas-redistricting-greg-casar

Walmart less profitable with union -- or -- more profitable with 50% unions?!

Let's say a labor union contract bumps Walmart prices up 7% -- how would that affect corporate profitability?  That would depend on what happened to the rest of the labor market -- namely whether Walmart's employees were primarily the ones to organize, or whether a broad swathe of the American workforce got itself organized.

Walmart's labor costs are a phenomenally low 7% -- most businesses run 10%-15% -- fast food 25%.

If Walmart workers were primarily ones to be newly unionized, then, sales results probably wouldn't differ much from sales lost to a 7% tariff effect.

But, if (IF) labor union density across all private (non-gov) workplaces had expanded from today's 6% to, say, 50%, then, that would probably hike Walmart sales and profits.  Lower income workers who disproportionately patronize Walmart would have more purchasing power to splurge.

The bottom 40% of American earners take home 10% of all income.  Double their share of overall income to 20% and Walmart sales should likely grow.  Walmart purchases by (what I call) the "middle 59%" might go up or down.

Today, the top 1% takes 20% of overall income -- up from 10% when I was a youngster.  When I was a youngster the president of the United States was a Republican, retired five star general. When I was a youngster the top personal income tax rate was 92%.

Redistributional taxes can finish the equqlity leveling job.  Nobody needs to keep seven hundred (!) million dollars for playing baseball.  Cut back Medicaid?  Whatever in the world for?!

How are we supposed to achieve something like 50% union density Nirvana?  Answer: only by federally mandating union cert/recert/decert elections at every private (non-gov) workplace.  How to set all that up is all spelled out here:
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

Double today's Walmart's wages and benefits -- pumping prices up 7% -- with or without nationwide unionization -- I think the Teamsters Union could live with that.

PS. Thom Hartmann: Trump’s Factory Fantasy: The Middle Class Won’t Rise Without Unions. Full stop.
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trumps-factory-fantasy-the-middle-71f

To ladies in locker rooms, trans females will forever appear males, males, males -- intractable instinct

By the age of six, women have it baked into them how they will relate to natal males for  the rest of their lives -- social instinct.

Transgender males can take all the hormones and have all the procedures they want to -- women (and men) cannot see them as females -- social instinct.

Maybe if male-to-female trans begin transition at the earliest possible age and take advantage of every available option (e.g., blocking puberty) they can get-by as not-very-much-male-left.  That is how I think I would see -- instinctively.

Maybe females could tolerate that.  Only way to find out is to experiment, I guess.

Meanwhile, maybe trans angst could be eased by suggesting to them -- in only the most helpful manner -- that they don't seem to feel to terribly if everybody else stays out of the ladies room or female lockers.  Maybe they can find some equivalence in that.  ???

https://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom-laws-worry-parents/

Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0812995430/?bestFormat=true&k=becoming%20nicole%20book&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k0_1_11&crid=383VL6IEEPE0G&sprefix=becoming%20ni

When the Opposite Sex Isn't: Sexual Orientation in Male-to-Female Transgender People                                                       https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6493612-when-the-opposite-sex-isn-t

ON A SILVER PLATTER

 Progressive folks these days sound like they are ready to work everybody to death, doing any and everything you can do in opposition to the Donald.

The best defense is a good offense:
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

Nothing could be easier to sell.  I think the idea would spread across country effortlessly -- maybe more like wildfire.  No need for charismatic national leadership.

Unions would pour billions into it -- but they needn't.  The Donald's loss of credibility should be cratering just about time for labor -- the REAL labor to come marching back.

Forget Donald and about just about every other issue we are concerned about.  We have to do this anyway or we will never deal well with anything else.  In Europe workers can organize at will -- ownership doesn't break all the rules at will.  If we want a European style social democracy we have to mandate union elections at every private workplace,

We can hand ourselves back our future on a silver platter.

Social Security Trust Fund -- a flawed flip-flop from the git-go

Question: What sort of Social Security retirement system counts, as a crucial portion of its future revenue, a stream that is set up to run out (as in dry up) --just as it reaches its maximum contribution (approx 20%)?

Answer: In 1983, Congress -- rather then setting up a straight forward mechanism to funnel federal income tax revenue into Social Security retirement payouts -- when FICA could no longer keep up with growing retirement needs -- such projected to happen 35 years out (35 years out!) -- instead hatched the so-called Trust Fund, see-saw stream scheme.

During the long wait for this income tax diversion-into-retirement payouts switch to begin, Congress prescribed that all the excess Social Security (FICA) rev should be used to pay for "on budget" items, that income tax would normally pay for -- and that a matching amount of US bonds be set aside in the so-called Trust Fund to be drawn down in (far) future decades when our growing elderly population finally (at long last) makes FICA -- at the current tax rate -- unable to support retirements in full.

This was to be considered "saving" money for (much) later retirements --IOUs to ourselves.

(FICA tax revenue, by itself, could not fully meet retirement obligations beyond 2010.  After that, interest earned by US bonds in the Trust Fund were able to fill the payouts til until 2019 -- a stream within a stream  -- writing IOUs to ourselves within IOUs to ourselves.)

I don't know why the 1983 Congress would concern itself with Social Security shortfall 35 long years down the road -- and not care to provide for full-up funding beyond the 50 year point.

Trust Fund dry up is looming now (2035?), and we are being warned that Social Security will face a so-called "crisis."

A common sense resolution: we could institute a mechanism that permanently diverts income tax revenue sufficient to cover FICA shortfall -- which is what we have been doing in financial terms since 2019, and which is all Congress ever had to do in the first place.  Lazy alternative: print up a bunch of bonds (more IOUs to ourselves) and stuff them into the Trust Fund to keep the income tax into retirement payouts machinery up and running.

The so-called Social Security Trust Fund was a fundamentally flawed flip-flop gizmo from the git-go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Print our way out of the so-called Social Security crisis -- SEE UPDATED SOLUTION

FORGET WHAT I WROTE YESTERDAY (see below) ON THE TRUST FUND.

No need to print up new bonds in 2035 to stuff into the then 52 year old Trust Fund.  Just legislate some kind of new mechanism -- call it what you want -- the "Income Tax Supplement For FICA Shortfall" bill or some such -- just continuing what we have been doing all along with different revenue streams.  

"Crisis" over.  :-)
************************************** 

 

 Question: what kind of Social Security retirement system pegs a crucial part of its funding to a revenue stream that will suddenly run out (as in dry up) just as that revenue stream is making its biggest contribution (about 25% of payouts)?

Answer: the Federal Social Security's so-called Trust Fund.

For about 25 years (1983-2010), excess FICA revenue (more than needed to cover retirements) was redirected to pay for so-called "on budget" items (normally paid for by income tax) -- like court houses and bridges and aircraft carriers and FBI salaries.

For approximately the following 25 years (2010-forecast 2035) growing FICA tax shortfall is to be made up for with income tax revenue -- and here comes the crazy part -- but only up until the amount of income tax fill-in today matches the amount of FICA redirection in the past.

FICA redirection in the past was supposed to be compensated for by putting equal amount of bonds in the so-called Trust Fund -- to be drawn down in the future when FICA revenue was expected to go negative. Only problem: limited funds run out; people don't.  Or did the 1983 Congress have some prescient knowledge that the world was going to come to an end around 2035?

Simple answer: if we want to keep funding retirements partially with income tax (today, approximately 25%), just print more IOUs to ourselves and stuff them into the Trust Fund -- they were always just IOUs to ourselves anyway.

If we want to come up with a more sensible retirement system, that would be a propitious moment to build it.

Make Democracy Work Again: mandate cert/recert/decert union elections

Higher minimum wage -- blah!  Unions systemically squeeze out the maximum price consumers are willing to pay for their labor.

Any lower price should be taken as a unionless discount -- I wish I could make up an "official sounding" term for this -- start a whole new theory.

We can have all the universal health care, child tax credit, whatever you want.  As long as we suffer "the discount" the rest will always be hollow.

Europe may have the same union organizing rules we have, but they have a social convention to obey the rules.  Our rules may as well not exist -- walking all over them the long held tradition.

SO, MANDATE UNION CERT ELECTIONS AT EVERY PRIVATE WORKPLACE.  

I think the only reason we haven't done so is social instinct -- we are so used to our ass backwards, anti-organizing structure that we think (feel) it is the only way life can be.  Further, if you suggest a mandate it is -- irony of ironies -- dismissed out of hand because it seems impossible that the world could be so completely turned around so quickly and so easily.

https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Chapter and verse of Republican ideology -- seemingly ready to turn the world inside-out.  Weave it through and through-out the federal budget -- it all boils down to; all it boils down to is to shave 10% off spending. If we waited for 10 years and for 20% more per capita economic growth -- the Republicans would still be for cutting the same 10% -- still imagining they would be turning the world inside-out.

Watched news report tonight that the Trump seems to be using Fox News to fill in so many hiring slots at all levels that you might think Fox was taking over the administration (or the [foreign?] country). 

"Everyone who offered an opinion was for Mr. Trump"

 "Everyone wanted better material conditions for themselves and their families, and everyone was struggling to obtain them. Some didn’t want to talk about politics. Others felt so ignored by politicians that they have disengaged from the process altogether. Everyone who offered an opinion was for Mr. Trump."

It’s the Inflation, Stupid: Why the Working Class Wants Trump Back

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-election-inflation-working-class.html

The war on Ambien/Zolpidem

 There were 40 million prescriptions for Ambien in this country in 2012.   By 2020 that was down to 10 million.  The 30 million prescriptions withdrawn were for patients over 65 years old.  At the same time, 85% of patients on all sleep meds were on Ambien.
https://jabberwocking.com/health-update-21/

58 million Americans are above age 65.

My question is, if 40 million patients can get behind Ambien, why cannot -- why did not -- 30 million coalesce behind a "substitute"?  Perhaps because there is no specific substitute to satisfy their needs?!

I suspect that most prescription denial experiences include your primary physician offering a couple of, what I call "generic" alternates (eg., Trazodone) then fobbing you off to a sleep doctor -- who has no more idea of what might be a equivalent substitute than your primary.

Before your primary bumps you off the sleep med that has made your life livable for years, he or she should have a page of  14 questions to put to you -- to know what to switch to -- if there is any suitable alternate.  I suspect there is not a suitable substitute -- especially in the drug hang over department.  If 30 million patients had found a decent substitute, we would be hearing about it by now.

What is so unique about Ambien?  In my case I can cut a 10mg pill into three pieces: 5mg to go to sleep; two 2.5mgs to put me back to sleep when I wake up in the middle of the night.  Matches my sleep pattern exactly.  I feel no drug hangover even two hours after taking.  I call it 25-45-50 -- 25 minutes to reach max effect; 45 in deepest; 50 turning off.

I wake up next day bright eyed and bushy tailed.

The refreshing feeling I get after an Ambient sleep reminds me the feeling I got after my first sleep study for apnea.  I groaned being told I would only get 4-5 hours sleep which would be interrupted.  Instead, on the way home I felt more refreshed than I had felt for a long time -- finally had some deep refreshing sleep.

Just to make sure readers don't misunderstand "bright eyed and bushy tailed" as some kind of drug high.

Ambien makes you more likely to get into a traffic accident?  The drug makes you oblivious to driving mistakes while you are making them?  I would suggest that if you are half-way intelligent, you will recognize the mistakes after you make them and will know enough to get off that drug.

Half the elderly population may be being deprived of sleep or suffering hangover because the medical establishment is afraid we will slip in the bathtub.

I think that the manufacturers of Ambien should suggest to their former patients that they seek to get their prescriptions from DOs or psychiatrists -- who focus more on how people feel emotionally after treatment. I think they will have better luck.