Coping with President Trump

Published Oct. 5, 2016, http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Jeff-Gewert-op-ed-Coping-with-President-Trump-9692270.php


We all have to be prepared for the remote possibility that we will wake up on November 9 to find that Donald Trump is our 45th President.  Here is one rationalization to help cope with that horror.

It’s generally accepted that the popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is in large part a result of voters’ dissatisfaction with the overall state of this country, particularly a dysfunctional Washington, D.C.  By and large, most Americans agree social change is desperately needed.  The obvious exceptions might be the richest ten   percent of Americans whose wealth grows exponentially.  Over the last 40 years, the middle class has continued to shrink while the gap in terms of wealth between the top ten percent and the rest of the nation has ballooned to such extremes as to remind us of the opulence and avarice of European monarchs of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Unfortunately, America has historically embraced large scale, social change the hard way.  Positive, meaningful social legislation has almost always come as a result of serious upheaval like the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the tumultuous 1960's.  These were events that threatened virtually every American regardless of wealth.  And when the majority of Americans of all social strata feel their life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness is vulnerable, a consensus for dramatic social change frequently follows.  And such change often comes with uncharacteristic rapidity in Washington.

The Civil War brought an end to slavery, gave citizenship to all those born in the U.S., and voting rights to all male citizens regardless of race.  The Great Depression ushered in the New Deal which included Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Unemployment Insurance.  And the unrest of the 1960's helped facilitate an end to the Vietnam War and military draft, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 which removed barriers to black voting, desegregated much of America, and created Medicaid.

American history tells us things need to get a lot worse before they get better.  So that brings me to Trump, arguably a megalomaniac whose stated beliefs and plans for this country betray everything America stands for; a man with few, if any, credentials to serve as Commander in Chief; and a man who seems to relish saying outlandish things that alienate people and nations.  If his campaign rhetoric comes to fruition, he could be disastrous for this nation, but isn’t that exactly what history is telling us the doctor should order?

Certainly, in my mind, Hillary Clinton will just serve up more of the same Washington dysfunction and corruption we’ve seen for decades and so desperately need to fix.  Yes, she promises change, but don’t all candidates, regardless of party, offer the hope of better things to come?  But, few campaign promises are kept.   Although it would be an important milestone in our history for a woman to be elected President, we first need to preserve the nation before setting precedents. 

This newfound willingness of the populace to embrace maverick candidates like Sanders and Trump is unprecedented and affords us an opportunity to shake up the status quo.  We may never get a better opportunity to say to Washington we’re not going to take it anymore.      

For Trump and Sanders to almost get to the Oval Office won’t have much impact, but for one of them to achieve that goal will definitely alarm career politicians.  And who knows, maybe it will change Washington politics for the better. 

Perpetuating the status quo in Washington that Clinton represents may threaten America’s long term prosperity more than Trump.  America shows its best mettle when disaster seems imminent and is somewhat complacent otherwise.  In many respects, we are like a drug addict that needs to hit rock bottom before acknowledging we have a problem and to find the willpower to sober up.  The quicker we hit the skids, the faster we’ll recover.
 
Trump could unwittingly be the catalyst of constructive change, while Clinton is unlikely to break the shackles of special interests and money that  have controlled both Democrats and Republicans for decades.  But, could I vote for Trump - I seriously doubt it, but if he wins I will cling to hope that this silver lining will come true.

A political idea we all can agree upon

For those who get defensive at the slightest suggestion of political views opposing their own, I assure you this op-ed is not one of them.  No specific parties, ideologies, or names of elected officials or candidates are mentioned.  Instead it takes a generalized view of the political landscape and offers an idea we all might embrace for the betterment of the country.

One characteristic that defines politics today is that voters typically spend more time  lambasting the opposing party and not enough time carefully assessing the politicians they support.  The media and politicians encourage this and why not?  It’s classic subterfuge and they wield it to great advantage.  Debates and campaign ads concentrate on labeling opponents as incompetent and dangerous, and little, if any, time is spent detailing their own record or specific plans for our future.  Fear keeps you tuned into the TV and fear gets the fear mongers elected.

All politicians are essentially the same.  They encourage us to fear and attack the other party, while making promises they don’t intend to keep, making claims that are untrue,  and abandoning most American citizens once they’re in office.  Not surprising, we become important again at reelection time.  Regardless of whom controls Washington, we are victims of polarization, gridlock, and, most importantly, special interests, while the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class flounders in an economic limbo.  And yet, no politician in any party considers themselves accountable.  It’s always the other party’s fault.  When does this end?

Washington and politics in general will not improve until we begin to hold every elected official to the highest standards of the respective office they occupy in terms of honesty, integrity, objectivity, transparency, fairness, and compassion.

I think most of us would agree that the executive and legislative branches in Washington, D.C. are dysfunctional institutions that no longer serve the interests of the nation regardless of who is in office.  So why do we tolerate it?  We tolerate it because politicians and media get us preoccupied with how one party is screwing us when, in fact, both major parties are.

We need to think for ourselves and reason for ourselves, rather than run around like trained monkeys conditioned to consume morsels of finely cooked, fear-inducing, biased sound bites from media and politicians,.  Winston Churchill’s inspirational words during World War II still ring true today: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

The destructive nature of party politics is apparently not new.  This quote from Mark Twain at the turn of the Twentieth Century is evidence of that:

“Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits...”

Unless you are one of the richest individuals, corporations, or special interest groups, you essentially don’t influence the course of your own government.  You matter to politicians in terms of what they say, particularly at election time, but you don’t matter in terms of what they actually do.

By-and-large, Washington operates as a plutocracy.  Yes, we have democratically elected representatives, many rich and powerful in their own right, but an elite group of wealthy individuals, global corporations and well-funded special interest groups are the puppet masters.

We do, however, have the collective power to change that if we stop allowing irrational fear to consume us and cease our preoccupation with denigrating the opposition.  Only then will we see the true colors of our own favored politicians and begin to objectively focus on the corrupting influences that plague Washington.  Campaign finance would be a good start, but getting most elected officials to endorse it would be tantamount to a vampire providing the wooden stake.   

With 2016 rapidly approaching, make it your New Year's resolution to spend less time criticizing the opposition and more time getting to really know your own politicians and holding them accountable for their actions.  What more opportune time going into a presidential election year to begin changing Washington for the better?

The root cause of terrorism is oppression

In the wake of the San Bernardino and Paris attacks, fear and anger have given rise to hubris and xenophobia.  The inclination of many is to advocate for more surveillance, closed borders, and to bomb perceived enemies further back into the Dark Ages in an age of unending Middle Eastern warfare.  Little, if any, deep thought seems to be given to what motivates people to sacrifice their own lives to do us harm?  Instead, convenient answers are tossed about:  The terrorists are envious of our standard of living or driven by religious fanaticism. 

Many Americans I speak with know little about our record in the Middle East or care to know.  They rely exclusively on narrow, often reactionary, sound bites from politicians and media.

The truth is the West has been meddling in the Middle East for more than two centuries, and longer if you consider the Crusades.  Even the borders of modern Middle Eastern countries were, in large part, arbitrarily drawn by the West after the fall of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, often ignoring ethnic, religious, and tribal differences. 

The United States’ role, a relatively recent one, has been motivated by an insatiable appetite for oil, protection of Israel, and a fear of the spread of communism.  In pursuit of these goals, the U.S. has long supported despots who permit the exploitation of their nation's natural resources and strategic locations in exchange for their own personal enrichment and protection. 

As a consequence, the general populace of most of these nations live in abject poverty and oppression.  They have little hope and no voice, and see terrorism as the only way to be heard.  Promoting democracy in the region would give them that voice, but we don't aggressively advocate democratization because authoritarian governments are easier to buy, predict and control.

The story of Iran illustrates this point.  By the CIA’s own admission, they instigated a coup in 1953 that overthrew the highly popular, democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.  He lost favor with the West when he decided to nationalize Iran’s petroleum industry which, since 1908, was fully controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company owned in large part by the British government.  First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, Winston Churchill, called the British control of Iran's oil fields “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams.”

The removal of the Prime Minister ushered in decades of brutal oppression at the hands of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, a pivotal Western ally until he was overthrown during the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  The radicalism we see in Iran today is largely a result of this Western interference.  Former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright stated in 2000 that “the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development.  And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Today our allies in the Middle East include some of the worst human rights offenders in the world including Bahrain, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.  Radicalism is usually born from oppression so it is counterintuitive to wage a War on Terror without considering what role the West plays in oppressing countries where terrorism is born.

Limited warfare waged principally by drones and other air strikes has removed the unsavory prospect of mounting U.S. casualties and made war more palatable.  But, what we don’t readily see are the enormous civilian casualties. 

Pentagon censorship of media in war zones has helped keep these casualties from the public’s eye.  Even by conservative counts civilian deaths in Iraq alone since 9/11 far exceed 100,000, but without disturbing My Lai-type images on the 6 o’clock news there is no public outcry.  Out of sight, out of mind, while animosity for West, particularly America, grows stronger. 

Terrorists have always existed in world history and always will so long as there are oppressed people.  What is different today is the terrorist’s ability to kill great numbers of people.  The unrelenting advancement of technology will continue to put more concealable, more powerful weapons in their hands.  In an age of biological agents and drones, no amount of security or military aggression is going to stop determined terrorist groups from killing more and more people. 

The root cause of terrorism is oppression and we can’t address terror effectively without giving oppressed people self-determination.  Our foreign policy can no longer cling to the century-old mantra, “speak softly and carry a big stick.”  That won’t work in the 21^st century.

Hope, reason, and goodwill must shape our view of the world rather than fear, hatred, and exploitation.  If we don’t change with the times, we will continue to reap what we sow and the consequences will only grow worse.

Preying on taxpayers to finance inefficient government

We often hear real life stories of people accused of crimes accepting a plea bargain even though they're innocent.  If the deck is stacked against you and the state is determined to convict, people commonly accept the lesser of two evils.  Standing on principal and refusing to plead guilty is often seen as foolhardy.  Thus, I may be considered a fool for what I'm about to tell you.

Since 2007 when the "great recession' began, the state, desperate for revenues, began aggressively pursuing corporations registered in other states who do  business in Connecticut without a Certificate of Authority.  The certificate requires a simple registration and annual fee, but many companies are unaware of the requirement because the state does nothing to publicize the fact. 

I did my due diligence in 1986 when I started my small, one-man, NY corporation with its sole office in Connecticut where I reside.  A prominent law firm and a CPA were engaged to make certain everything was done properly, but they knew nothing of this certificate.  We complied with all requirements by the Department of Revenue Services including the obtaining of a Sales and Use Permit allowing  us to charge CT sales tax.  For 28 years everything was copasetic until I recently received an assessment for $6,375 in past fees plus $59,985 in penalties for failure to obtain a Certificate of Authority. 

How could this have gone on for nearly three decades without a notice from the state?  If I never acquired a Certificate of Authority granting me permission to do business in the state, how could I be given the authority to charge sales tax?    

Currently, the state assesses a $300 penalty for each month the fee is not paid with no cap and apparently no statute of limitations.  The penalty is the same whether you are a Fortune 50 company or a tiny business like mine.  This poses a conflict of interest for the state.  By continuing to keep taxpayers in the dark, Connecticut makes a great deal of money.  

According to an August, 2013 article in the Hartford Courant, "State Collects At Least $1M Yearly In Penalties From Out-Of-State Firms," a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, Susan Kinsman, admitted:  "Often companies are unaware of the requirements, rather than trying to deliberately circumvent the law."  And yet the state does nothing to effectively notify businesses of this statute.

There are two purported benefits for requiring out-of-state businesses to register.   One, is to protect consumers with grievances against out-of-state firms by requiring a point of contact in Connecticut to accept legal papers.  This does not apply to my company since the only point of contact is, and always has been, a Connecticut address.  The second is to protect in-state companies from unfair competition.  All my company's revenues have historically been from New York based businesses.  So neither of these justifications applies to my company.  In light of my circumstances, Governor Malloy's campaign claim of promoting small businesses seems a bit disingenuous.

In almost every instance where I have done wrong in my life, I can clearly see the mistake and learn from it.  But, in this particular case I see none.  I did my due diligence in setting up my company and dutifully paid my Connecticut corporate taxes for 28 years noting I was registered in New York.  And yet for nearly three decades I received no notification of wrongdoing.  Now, when the state is desperate for money they suddenly drop 28 years of fees and penalties on my company's lap at a time it is struggling to remain solvent.  

In light of my companies current financial situation, the state has reduced my assessment to $12,750 which still requires me to pay 28 years of fees within two years along with $6,375 in penalties.   Unfortunately, the amount would still pose a heavy burden and the penalties are draconian given the state does nothing to alert companies of the law. 

Although my home has been on the market since early May, I had planned to remain in the state to continue foster parenting which I hoped would lead to adoption.  This horrible situation will likely force me to file for bankruptcy and leave.  As a consequence, Connecticut stands to loose an honest, long-term corporate and individual taxpayer, as well as a foster parent and prospective adoptive parent. 

All this has been expressed repeatedly to state officials including two certified letters to the governor, and the only response has come from a state attorney who refuses to compromise any further or even admit the state bears some responsibility. 

Regardless of whether you deem me a fool or even ungrateful for the state's reduction of fees and penalties, the state should not prey on its own taxpayers to fuel its inefficient government.

Military academies may serve as solution to poverty

President Lyndon Johnson's administration defined their legislation to help the poor as a "war on poverty."  Although well-meaning it lacked the level of conviction and sustained effort to bring about complete victory.  Arguably, there has never been such a social program, except maybe the New Deal that helped bring an end to the Great Depression.  To fight any kind of war half-heartedly is just a waste of money. 

Although many wars in the wake of World War II have been fought in this manner and as a result, no clear victories, our armed forces are unquestionably the most powerful on the planet.  Often complete victory is denied because of political and economic reasons, not the quality of our troops.  

The way we approach our preparedness for war, not necessarily how we wage them, might serve as a lesson on how to fight poverty.  Aside from technological superiority and economic might, a major reason for our impressive armed forces is our military academies which continuously infuse the military with the very best, young talent.

We have five military academies:  The Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs), Coast Guard Academy (New London), Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point), Military Academy (West Point), and the Naval Academy (Annapolis).  In exchange for free tuition and other incentives, graduates are commissioned officers who must serve several years in the military and later the reserves.  Kings Point graduates have additional options including work in the civilian maritime industry.

Why not have additional academies to train young people to fight poverty by educating them in fields of study that are desperately needed in poor communities?  In exchange for free college tuition, they would serve five years working in these underserved neighborhoods as school administrators, social workers, teachers, and the like.  Their emphasis would be the children and the parents or guardians who raise them.  This holistic approach of offering support in both schools and homes would equip children with all the tools they need to compete, and by doing so, finally break the cycle of poverty that has plagued our nation for  centuries. 

We have always feared off-shore enemies, but we tend to underestimate the threats from within.  And perpetual poverty is definitely an enemy we need to fight with the same conviction we would fight an invading army.

Each academy could be focused on a particular field of social work or education.  Within five years we could have 25,000 or more talented young people in poor communities dedicated to helping children.  The entire infrastructure of poor communities could be transformed within a decade.

The military and its related military academies protect our economic and strategic interests worldwide.  These teaching and social work academies would protect these same interests at home.  In today’s global economy, the demand for intellectual capital is more essential than ever if a nation is to remain strong. 

Furthermore, by breaking the cycle of poverty we could reduce costly social programs like welfare.  A study by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services agency found that “families living in poverty were the least likely to have resources available to them” and “the more compromised these families are, the more likely it is that they eventually will come into contact with the child welfare or some other social system.”

The U.S. has the largest prison system in the world.  A study conducted by the State University of New York - Binghamton found that three decades ago the U.S. prison population was about one-eighth its current size.  Poverty breeds crime and creating better schools in poor neighborhoods supported by comprehensive social programs will offer young adults alternatives to criminal activities.  College and a lucrative career will no longer be considered unattainable. 

The expense of these academies would be far less than the money spent on traditional social programs and our prison system.

No one balks at the expense of running five military service academies and therefore, no one should question the merit of these academies of social work and education.