Some thoughts on… Glimmering of Hope

With the upcoming midterms, I’m reflecting on how I am doing compared to two years ago during the last major election.  The answer is I am feeling a glimmering of hope.

 

In October 2020, Covid had just started six months before, the country was coming up to a major presidential election, unemployment had skyrocketed and the economy contracted, the make-up of the Supreme Court was changing (with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and I recall waking up every morning nervous and questioning what new destabilizing update would be coming out of the White House.

 

In October 2022, with a new administration, life feels more stable, and the government is getting traction in addressing the needs of the broader populace.  With a stronger economy, the pressing issues now are inflation and a war in Ukraine which is disrupting global trade. Yet despite differing viewpoints, the country has managed to accomplish several large tasks in the past two years.

 

1.     Passing Substantial Domestic Legislation with Bi-partisan Support (a few examples below)

-       American Rescue Plan (2021) – Providing $1.9 trillion in funding for COVID vaccination availability as well as housing and small-business relief.  

-       Infrastructure Bill (2021) – Granting $1 trillion in funds to local governments to upgrade outdated roads, bridges, transit systems and more.

-       Gun Safety Bill (2022) – Most sweeping gun safety bill in 30 years providing funds for background checks, mental health support, and state “red flag” bills.

-       CHIPS and Science Act (2022) – Subsidizing semi-conductor production in the US and preventing technology leakage to competitor countries, like China 

-       Inflation Reduction Act (2022) – Instituting a minimum corporate tax of 15% and allowing Medicare negotiations on drug prices in order to fund energy security and climate change investments.

-       PACT Act (2022) – Largest expansion of healthcare benefits for veterans since 1990.

2.     Working Government

-       The Congress is investigating the attack on the Capitol on January 6, and is presenting clear evidence on the individuals who almost prevented a peaceful transition of power

-       The Justice Department is pushing to retrieve confidential documents taken from the US Archives and stored in Mar-a-Lago

-       The Federal Reserve is pursuing its dual mandate shifting focus from increasing employment to decreasing inflation by increasing interest rates 

3.     Re-establishing International Relations

-       The US continues to reduce carbon emissions and has rejoined the Paris Agreement on Climate Change signed by 196 parties/countries to address climate change. 

-       The US was instrumental in creating a unified coalition of 50 nations including the EU,  Nordic, and NATO countries to defend Ukraine from Russia.

 

Although Joe Biden’s mental fitness has been mocked internationally and domestically, this administration may have accomplished more legislation and initiated more actions that will affect the next 50 years than the past five Democratic or Republican administrations.  Current polls indicate two-thirds of the country believe the country is on the wrong track, which may reflect the fact that many of the above initiatives won’t have an effect for some time.  Although there’s more to do, it’s healthy to consider the forward progress as well.

 

Major uncertainties still need to be resolved – increasing likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by Russia, rising inflation and the price of oil as winter approaches, continuing damage from climate change.  But seeing the country progress rather than regress, makes me believe we can elect effective leaders to help steer the direction of the country.  As I reflect on the pros/cons of different candidates, here are some principles which I will use to decide.

 

1.     Governance vs. Grievance

It is the easy for candidates to complain about problems, but it is harder to actually do something productive.  A grievance culture helps erode our trust in institutions – churches, schools, local and federal agencies. Instead of complaining about issues, e.g. a millionaire grieving the increase in price of crudites or a Yale Law graduate blaming elites for the decline of Appalachia, I’m watching for candidates who are trying to solve problems, propose alternatives and lead activities.

 

2.     Strengthening vs. Weakening rights

Critical civil rights – voting rights, women’s rights – are being tested this year.  Spurred by individuals denying the results of the 2020 election, several states are passing election interference laws that permit partisan actors to interfere with elections operations or overturn election results.  With abortion rights, candidates are either hypocritical on their position, or are denying and erasing their previous restrictive stance in the wake of public outrage.  I am supporting candidates that are on the side of strengthening these rights, not taking them away.

 

3.     Engaging vs. Withdrawing

Since World War II, the US essentially created the current global world order, and has benefited from a strategic, military and trade perspective. As the country again engages on international and climate change issues, I am watching for candidates who want to address both domestic as well as global challenges.

 

I am skeptical of many political candidates as they may come off as inauthentic or insincere, and so understanding their positions on critical issues is one way to restore trust in those representing us in government. Instead of voting for candidates who wish to lament the breaking of the house, I’m going to support ones that are actually delivering to make the house we live in better. 

 

A big thanks to Steve Uhl for counter-point to an earlier version of the essay’s arguments.

 

Some thoughts on… Reducing Triggers

It’s been a few terrible weeks in terms of gun violence in the US. As we remember the mass shooting at Uvalde Elementary and honor lost soldiers during Memorial Day weekend, it’s sobering to realize that in 2021 more children from 0-11 years age have died from gun violence (313), than policemen killed on duty excluding COVID deaths (179) and military personnel on the battlefield (18).

 

The availability of guns has made the US one of the countries with the highest gun death rates in the world.   And some states, like Texas, continue to loosen gun restrictions, allowing people to openly carry a gun without a permit.  An argument is made that by providing more weapons to law-abiding citizens, we can reduce gun violence.  But as a classroom educator, I don’t believe arming teachers to defend kids from shooters is going to make students safer.

 

President Biden urged the nation to consider regulation that would do three things: 1) eliminate the sale of assault weapons or raise the age for selling arms to twenty-one; 2) strengthen background checks; and 3) expand “red flag” rules across the US.  The House of Representatives passed legislation with some of these measures.  The Senate is debating a slimmed down bi-partisan bill. 

 

What are the three aspects of Biden’s proposal?

 

First, the US had a ban on assault weapons – semi-automatic firearms designed to fire rapidly – but the ban expired over 2 decades ago.  Since then, these weapons have been increasingly used in mass shootings, since they can be bought starting at 18-year-olds legally in many states.  The US has a Federal prohibition on hand gun sales to individuals below 21 years old, but rifles are allowed for sale from 18-years old (assault weapons are considered rifles).  

 

Second, in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act required licensed gun dealers to run a background check when selling a weapon.  Since that time, on-line sales and gun shows have led to un-licensed dealers peddling weapons without checks. 

 

Finally, in some cases people who already have guns may need to be restricted access, “red flag” laws could help.  These are laws where courts and policemen can identify dangerous individuals and remove their weapons.

While working in the pharmaceutical industry, an argument from a handful of executives was that restricting opioid distribution in order to reduce drug abuse would hurt law-abiding citizens suffering from pain.  The drug was not the problem – it was the abuser.

 

The gun industry has a similar argument.  It’s not the guns but the people using the guns that kill people. True, but restricting access to certain types of semi-automatic firearms makes it significantly harder to kill so many people at one time.  For opioids, the medical community now recognizes it is not the abuser but the availability of the dangerous item.

 

The current version of the Senate bill would expand background checks and “red flags”; it would not ban assault weapons.  More needs to be done to monitor availability, this is a first step and a glimmer of hope that Congress is not irreparable. 

 

Although down from 1990, about 60% of Americans want stricter gun control. Moving in the direction of reducing the availability of triggers seems like rational policy.  People expressing their perspective in the wake of these shootings is propelling change.  Please write to your Senator or Congressperson.  My letter to my representative is below.

 

===

 

Rep. Zeldin – 

 

I do not support your perspective on the availability of guns.  I think the US should 1) restrict sales of assault weapons and raise the age limit of gun purchases to 21; 2) strength background checks and, 3) continue to expand “red flag” laws nationally similar to what we have in Suffolk County.

 

Law-abiding citizens who have guns will not be impacted by these laws and although you proclaim that this is a slippery slope, your argument is not documented by facts.  These laws save lives.  In addition, they are more effective when encouraged by law enforcement and the courts as currently occurs in our district.

 

I do not support your perspective nor your candidacy in the upcoming elections.

 

WN

Some thoughts on… Staying in the game

With the new year, I am reflecting on what I take-away from three major trends that played out in 2021 at the national, global and planetary levels, and applying my learning to 2022.

 

The first trend is the corrosion of democracy in the US that commenced in 2016 and reached a crescendo with an attack on the Capitol last year. The mob that besieged Congress was trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power, and were so disillusioned by the system that they believed violence was the only way to make change.  The lame duck President encouraged the actions, further removing trust amongst the remaining population.  Overall many people are feeling that government is not working for them, and a third of Americans believe “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.”

 

The current administration believes creating trust is done through actions - distributing vaccines, providing economic relief and cooperating with global partners.  But what was corrupted over the past few years – faith in government officials, belief in media, trust in science – will take time to rebuild.  Congressional programs like the American Jobs Act that will build infrastructure across the country may help restore faith in government.  Passing laws like Build Back Better with the goal of providing social infrastructure to a vast majority of the country and the Voting Rights Act which will strengthen voter access and voting integrity may help heal the fractures to the democratic process.  Regrettably, the rage of destruction acts more quickly than the art of creation.

 

The second trend is the relentless spread of Covid.  Even though there was widespread vaccine availability in many high-income countries, the lack of vaccines for the majority of the world population meant that the virus continued to spread and morph.  Global excess deaths from Covid are likely around 18.8 million with a range of 11.8M to 21.9M.  Due to vaccines, this is less severe than the 50M deaths attributed to the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, but we rich nations can’t purchase our way out of the problem. Although 9.16B shots have been administered across the globe, they are disproportionately in high-income countries, with African nations lagging behind.  The virus doesn’t recognize borders.  Preserving human life means solving the health problem within our borders as well as assisting our neighbors, especially countries that are the poorest in the global community.  

 

While the threats to democracy and global health have crowded the headlines, climate change looms over the planet threatening our collective existence.  Climate change has impacted every country of the world.  The examples of severe weather conditions - wildfires in Australia, flooding in Europe, desertification in North Africa, melting icecaps in Antarctica, severe hurricanes in the Americas – are undeniable.  With a vanishingly small window of time to address the issue, we are persistently destroying the world around us through our economic decisions. We know what it takes to change on an individual level – curtailing fossil fuel consumption, moving to a more plant-based diet, taking a system-wide view.  It’s not theory that is lacking but motivation to implement.  Finding that motivation is hard especially when we feel that our efforts are negligible.

 

Re-establishing trust, helping the poorest, and motivating change within my our communities are the three lessons I take into 2022. Hinduism believes in a “trimurti” or triumvirate of gods who are tied to each other Brahma (creator); Vishnu (preserver) and Shiva (destroyer).   They are equally powerful and need each other to move forward.  There is no preservation without creation, there is no creation without destruction. 

 

Living with an endless flux of events – things being created, preserved, destroyed - can feel overwhelming, isolating and pointless.  It seems easier to retreat into a bubble and just watch Netflix.  But detaching can’t be the solution. Rather finding peace by acting and reacting to the changes seems to be the constructive option.  So I plan to stay in the game, and keep striving to realize my three lessons for 2022.  I hope you will join me.

Some thoughts on… Telling Stories

With the 20^th anniversary of 9/11, I wanted to share my experiences of the event with the new cohort of students as a way to remember.  Preparing for the lecture though, I realized that most of them weren’t even born at the time or were only 1-2 years old.  How do you describe the importance of a world event that is imprinted in your memory, to someone who wasn’t even alive at the time?

 

Here’s what I said in the end.

 

==

 

This past weekend was the 20^th anniversary of 9/11.  As you may have seen there have been a lot of activities around the city remembering the date, but I realized most of you were too young or not even born at the time so you won’t have any experience to recall.  Many of you may even be wondering - Why is this such a big deal?

 

I think it’s a big deal and it’s important to listen to the stories and remember because people are storytellers.  The story of 9/11 is one of resilience – not just individuals getting through, but also of communities persevering.  I don’t want to glorify the event – this is not a simple rosy story. You may have heard how New York City became a kinder place in the months after 9/11 and how people came together in a shared sense of loss.  This was true.

 

But we also have to question the circumstances around the event.  The security lapses that allowed the event to happen.  The instability and income inequality in Middle-Eastern countries that engendered an attack on the US.  The spike in hate crimes that occurred in the ensuing months on Middle Eastern and Sub-Continent individuals.  And the 20-year war that was instigated in Afghanistan which only now is ending

 

That’s why we reflect on these historical events, because we only understand their impact by remembering the stories. The same is true of the story of the pandemic which is going to be imprinted in your memory and is still being written.

 

Everyone around the world remembers exactly where they were when they found out the planes hit the Trade Towers.  It was a global event.  Everyone (including you) also remembers where you were when the lockdown happened, e.g. our TA’s remember clearly the day that we stopped classes and the University evacuated all students.  

 

Similar to 9/11, the pandemic was a global event shared by almost every single human on the Earth.  It is seared into our brains.  We don’t have many of these – End of WWII, John F. Kennedy assassination, Moon Landing.  But when the global events do happen, they remind us that we are all tied together.

 

And just like 9/11, the pandemic brought people together, but it’s also not a rosy story.  We had lapses in management of the virus.  We have an unstable national health care system that made the spread easier.  We had a spike in hate crimes against the East Asian community. As for the future, we don’t know yet what the implications will be.  Maybe it will tear our country apart or pull us closer together.

 

An interesting aspect about both of these events is that although global, in some ways NYC was the epicenter or ground zero for both of them.  Although planes went down in Pennsylvania and Washington DC, the impact on downtown NYC is starkly remembered.  Similarly with the pandemic, in the first few weeks of Covid-19 NYC was experiencing an additional 800 deaths a day just here in the city (usually the rate is around 200 deaths a day). 

 

So next time you listen to these stories of reflection of past activities – I’d encourage you to do two things: 1) write down your own experience with the pandemic, so you can share your story later; and 2) appreciate that we are living in a city that’s been through a lot but it keeps going.  And that’s pretty amazing.

Some thoughts on… Building Bridges

Under President Biden’s administration so far, he has signed into law measures on Covid-19 Relief, addressing Asian American hate crimes, and making Juneteenth a Federal holiday.  But several major legislative initiatives are still being worked out in the House of Representatives and Senate, including revising immigration, supporting voting rights and rebuilding infrastructure.

 

Infrastructure bills have historically been non-partisan because they initiate jobs across the US primarily for non-college educated individuals and impact a wide swathe of the population regardless of political affiliation.  Biden’s $4.2 trillion infrastructure framework consists of two parts the  American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan.  The framework is facing Congressional debate on two fundamental questions - what is considered infrastructure, and how the legislation will be financed.  Deferring discussion on the payment question, 

 

What is driving the disagreement on Biden’s proposals?

 

Infrastructure is recognized as the systems and services that households and firms use in a country in order to interact and make the economy function.  Examples include physical systems such as road and railway networks, utilities, sewage, water, telephone lines and cell towers, air control towers, bridges, etc., plus services including law enforcement, emergency services, healthcare, education, etc.  Without roads or law enforcement, firms cannot hire individuals, and households cannot get to work safely. 

 

In economics, the case for government involvement to finance infrastructure is nuanced because these items are typically neither pure private or public goods.  Governments have a clear mandate to step in and provide funds for public goods because they are non-excludable and non-rivalrous.  Once produced, a person cannot be excluded from using public goods, and one person’s consumption of the public good doesn’t affect another, examples include National Defense or streetlights.  On the other hand, private goods are both excludable and rivalrous – once a pizza is made, people can be excluded from consuming it, and if I do consume the item, it prevents your consumption.  The private sector is best suited to produce private goods – government intervention is typically not needed.

 

Many infrastructure items - roads, railways, bridges – are similar but are not pure public goods since they are non-excludable but can be rivalrous.  People aren’t excluded from roads and highways but use by too many people will affect others due to congestion.  Whereas some infrastructure items are excludable but non-rivalrous.  Once an electric grid or cell tower is built people can be excluded from using them, and my enjoyment of electricity typically will not affect other users.  The debate on infrastructure stems from the facts that for these hybrid cases there is not a clear government mandate to step in from an economics viewpoint.

 

The first piece of legislation, the American Jobs Plan ($2.3 trillion) has 6 components which include physical systems: 

1.     Rebuilding roads, airports, ports and transit systems (falls into hybrid: non-excludable but rivalrous)

2.     Deliver clean drinking water, a renewed electric grid, and high-speed broadband to all Americans. (falls into hybrid: excludable but non-rivalrous)

3.     Build, preserve, and retrofit more than two million homes and commercial buildings, modernize our nation’s schools and child care facilities, and upgrade veterans’ hospitals and federal buildings.     (More like private goods but these items address less served communities where government has typically intervened)

 

There seems to be bi-partisan support for these “hard” items.  The American Jobs Plan also includes services provisions to:

 

4.     Solidify the infrastructure of our care economy by creating jobs and raising wages and benefits for essential home care workers. 

5.     Revitalize manufacturing, secure U.S. supply chains, invest in R&D, and train Americans for the jobs of the future. 

6.     Create good-quality jobs that pay prevailing wages in safe and healthy workplaces while ensuring workers have a free and fair choice to organize, join a union, and bargain collectively with their employers.

 

In addition, the American Families Plan ($1.9 trillion) focuses on making education more affordable and expanding opportunities, providing economic security for families, and expanding tax credits that help workers and families.  Examples include $200 billion to provide free preschool to all 3- and 4-year-olds; $109 billion to offer two years of free community college to all Americans; $225 billion to subsidize child care for families and support child care workers; $225 billion to create a national family and medical leave program; Permanently increase tax credits for child care. 

 

From an economics point of view, the last three components of the American Jobs Plan along with the American Families Plan ($1.9 trillion) would not typically be considered public goods or hybrids, and are the crux of the disagreement on Biden’s proposal.  The main argument against funding these items is that they are social services which should not be covered by an infrastructure package. 

Although these latter items do not conveniently fall into the public versus private goods definition, they should still be considered infrastructure since they facilitate the interaction between households and firms which is what drives the economy.  Just like roads and airports, the new services economy of the 21^st century cannot function properly without provisions that ensure worker and family safety, training and the ability to organize.

 

At stake is a notion that to remain globally competitive, the US needs to help households engage more easily with employers.  The outcome of the package will depend on how effectively the White House can convince citizens and bi-partisan congressional representatives of the importance of shoring up these broader more expansive concepts of infrastructure.

 

In other words, Biden will need to build some emotional bridges before building the physical ones.

            

Please do forward any interesting articles you are reading.  Previous blogs are at: www.kkwn.org, where you can also sign others up to receive posts.  If you would like to unsubscribe please click the link below. Look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Some thoughts on… Voicing a Perspective

Following the 2020 elections, over 43 states are introducing legislation to modify voting procedures.  Georgia’s recently passed legislation has caused Major League Baseball to move its Draft and All Stars Game away from Atlanta while Coca Cola and Delta Airlines have denounced the new laws.  This week, hundreds of companies posted a full-page ad in the New York Times denouncing limits in voting.  Some politicians have argued that companies should not get involved.  

 

So, should companies be voicing their perspective on political issues?

 

The conventional wisdom is that private sector companies should focus on the business of maximizing profits, i.e., both Republicans and Democrats drink Coke.  Economics shows that corporations are highly efficient at selling “private goods”, goods and services that are excludable and rivalrous.   Excludable means that Individuals can be effectively excluded from using them, and rivalrous means that the use by one individual reduces the good's availability to others. People cannot get a seat on a Delta flight without paying for it, and once that seat is taken, no one else can use it during the flight.

 

Government on the other hand are one of the few entities that can effectively provide “public goods”, goods and services that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous.  Clean air, street lighting, military defense, laws, are all examples of items that can be consumed without purchase and my use of them does not prevent others usage.  Preserving the ability to vote is a public good under the purvey of local, state and Federal legislation, companies typically should not get involved in the process.

 

Yet, private sector companies have been involved in the political process for some time, especially through financial lobbying.  The impact of lobbying became more pronounced in 2008 with the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee, allowed corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on campaign advertising as long as they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.  

 

The ruling reversed previous judicial precedent, and brought enormous spending by outside groups into political causes with money flowing through super-PACs.  The Supreme Court decision bolstered the argument that corporations are essentially people. An argument that was espoused and jeered down the political spectrum.  

 

Surprisingly over the past decade, companies have become more like people, or more precisely they are more willing to represent the voices of the people that they serve.  Historically, companies only focused on their bottom-line profits to satisfy shareholders, but now they are including perspectives of their employees, customers, and the positions of their executives.

 

With millennials an increasing voice the workforce, this cohort is expecting companies to take a greater stance on social concerns.  Whereas before companies may have been more tentative in expressing their opinions as they didn’t want to disenfranchise their core customer groups, now they realize that the core groups are expanding and customers are more diverse.  For example, Hermes, a luxury fashion company, has progressed from barring entry to Oprah Winfrey to having non-white people prominently shown on their ads.  The public is also more comfortable with companies speaking up on political issues.

 

Companies voicing their support for certain legislation is a logical and more transparent evolution from the practice of sending campaign financing to certain politicians.  As teachers, we encourage students to express their perspective.  We train them to make a strong argument and then voice it.  The Democratic party might be happier now that companies are acting more like people and expressing their voices.  But just as the Republicans have found, this could be a double-edged sword.  

 

We should encourage companies to express their voices, and recognize just like people that their perspectives may change depending on their community and financial situation.

 

==

 

Please do forward any interesting articles you are reading.  Previous blogs are at: www.kkwn.org, where you can also sign others up to receive posts. 

 

Some thoughts on… Setting an Agenda

About a third of the way into President Biden’s first 100 days, he has created more than 30 executive orders indicating his top priorities, including:

• Covid-19
• Rejoining the WHO
• Establishing a central pandemic coordinator
• Promoting masks on Federal property and flights
• Reopening schools
• Extending enrollment time for Medicaid/  Affordable Care Act
• Environment
• Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement
• Placing a moratorium on activities in the Arctic
• Establishing a National Climate Task Force    
• Economy -Increasing federal spending to American companies       
• Social Issues
• Revoking the Pentagon’s ban on transgender people in the military
• Resuming funding to non-profits providing counseling on abortions
• Enforcing sex discrimination protection for Federal agencies
• Establishing a President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology  
• Immigration
• Revoking restricted entry for Muslim countries
• Deferring removal of undocumented children brought to US
• Halting construction of Border Wall
• Reunifying children separated at the border

 

The administration is also pushing through legislation for a $1.9 Trillion Covid-19 relief bill which would potentially provide $1400 checks to Americans.  It’s heartening to see an administration working to solve issues addressing the American populace instead of focusing on their personal needs and covering up scandals. 

 

But Executive Orders are temporary and many of them are reversing measures placed by the previous Administration. Lasting change requires instituting laws and bolstering government services. Yet, as a country, we have pared back government, introducing unforeseen challenges to running the country, since the Federal Government still performs critical functions like disposing nuclear water, feeding the poor and avoiding weather disasters.

 

In Michael Lewis’ book, The Fifth Risk, he demonstrates how removing expertise in three Departments – Agriculture, Energy and Commerce – has led to situations where the government is “responding to long-term risks with short-term solutions… Creating an existential threat… [from the] innovation that never occurs and the knowledge that is never created, because you have ceased to lay the groundwork for it. It is what you never learned that might have saved you.” Covid-19 has made even more prominent the faults in our social structures.

 

With a new Presidency, I am wondering where I would focus my agenda.  Following on Michael Lewis’ concept – what are areas i) that need long-term solutions, ii) that may lead to an existential threat of the democracy if not managed properly and iii) can be solved by good government.

 

·      Enabling Access to Voting.  The 2020 election demonstrated that mail-in ballots, early voting, and secure elections are a necessity for our republic.  In January, Congress introduced H.R.1. – For the People Act of 2021 to ensure future elections are also accessible.  The Act would have the Federal government work with States to modernize voter registration, strengthen early voting and mail voting systems, and Restore the Voting Rights Act.  Arguments against the Bill are that it takes away States rights and potentially leads to voter fraud.  The Bill can be revised to get bi-partisan support.  Without measures that protect voting access, prevent political intervention, and avoid voter fraud, the repression of American voters will aggravate social and racial tension pulling the country further apart.

 

·      Eradicating Government Corruption.  Since 1995, Transparency International, a global non-profit, has published the Corruption Perceptions Index, a global indicator of public sector corruption. From 2016 to 2020, the US moving from 18^th to 25^th place in the rankings dropping behind U.A.E. and Bhutan in corruption – a significant decline for an OECD country.  Congress should pass legislation that ensures tax returns are released for public officials before election, debts owed to Foreign nationals are revealed, or tax-payer money spent on personal gain is exposed. Without these ethics measures, citizens’ trust of the system is eroded threatening democracy.

 

·      Building Information integrity.  George Orwell’s 1984, describe a dystopian world where reality is slanted by the Government to keep people under control.  In our world, where “alternative facts” are encouraged by the advisors to the President, the existential threat is the US ending up as an Orwellian country where citizens cannot agree on the reality around us.  Ironically, Congress is needed to fix a problem that government officials perpetuate.  Partnership between the private sector and Federal policy is needed to flag and stop dishonesty, especially on the internet.  For example, misinformation on the 2020 elections dropped 73% when social media platforms suspended accounts of fewer than 10 people in January of this year.  Without measures to prevent dispersion of deception, voters can be polarized and misled.

 

Since the 1980’s, as a society we have deprioritized regulation.  President Reagan infamously said – “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” The sentiment led to over 35 years of dismantling local, State and Federal government, leaving us with weakened regulatory structures. 

 

Rebuilding government infrastructure in meaningful areas could be the agenda of this Administration. Passing bold, imaginative legislation similar to the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 60’s during the social/ racial conflicts and the Ethics in Government Act passed after President Nixon’s resignation, could help heal the country and prevent erosion of our democracy.

 

Please do forward any interesting articles you are reading.  Previous blogs are at: www.kkwn.org, where you can also sign others up to receive posts.  If you would like to unsubscribe please click the link below. Look forward to hearing from you.