Is Providing Health Insurance for All Rocket Science?

Between the two of us we have over 50 years of experience having read, analyzed and critiqued a large body of written material that has been technical, complex, and sometimes opaque. We believe that we should be able to read and understand most public policies that apply to us. But we must admit to being baffled by the Affordable Care Act, and find it confusing to wade through the various choices, benefits, and costs contained within the Act. Adding to our confusion are the recent statements by the President that we "can keep our plan if we want to" (for a year--what does that mean), and by the legislation currently moving through Congress that will also allow people to keep their old plan (whatever that means).

We don't think that our confusion has anything to do with gridlock based on partisan politics. We think that the President and Congress are creating options and plans that protect themselves, their staffs, the insurance companies, and not the average American who wants/needs health insurance. The President and Congress have taken their eye off the ball, which is uninsured Americans, and have been wooed by the siren-songs of the single payer plan or the wisdom of the free market.

It really shouldn't be that hard if the focus is on providing health insurance for the 30 million uninsured Americans, some of whom can't afford insurance and some of the younger risk-takers who feel that the costs of insurance outweigh the benefits. So the questions are: (1) what is the cost of providing insurance for the uninsured? (2) how can we pay for that new cost by new taxes, or by increasing the costs of existing insurance plans, or by a combination of both.

We believe that we could come up with a plan to provide health insurance for the uninsured that would be easily understood and perhaps supported by a larger majority of Americans. We really don't think it is rocket science.

Academic Double Standard?

Our university president was criticized recently for giving the keynote address at a meeting of the Center of the American Experiment, a Minnesota think tank. The critics were concerned about the possible political leanings of the think tank and that the president was paid for his speech.

This incident caused us to reflect on our separate experiences while each serving as the head of an academic department. We could each recall providing almost automatic approval for any faculty request to be off campus for a speaking engagement. In fact, one of us can recall one faculty member who gave at least 50 public lectures in one academic year. Of immediate importance is that we cannot recall ever having asked about the group inviting our colleague, the topic of the speech, or the honorarium that was received.

Question: Should there be a different standard for faculty and administrators? Are administrators more likely to be viewed as speaking for the university, but not so for faculty? And where shall we draw the line: Presidents? Deans? Department Heads? Tenured Full Professors?

This certainly will require the work of a special committee, which will start its work with a survey of the policies used by peer institutions. In two or three years we shall have a new policy on the matter, but no one will remember why.  

Near Tragedy Averted By Obama-Putin Cooperation: A Parable

According to the Associated Press, the National Security Agency reported this morning that a Cruise Missile Attack Squad mistakenly sent a cruise missile streaking toward Moscow with Putin as the intended target. The error was caused by the Squad's reading of the text of Obama's speech to the American people on 9/12/13. The Squad was unfortunately unused to reading real printed words on real paper and they misread Obama's statement that the attack on Syria "would not be a pin prick" to mean a  reference to Putin as a "pin-headed prick." They had to launch to avoid another empty Red Line threat.

Radio Moscow reports that the spirit of Lenin was watching over Putin. Luckily, Putin was out on horseback when the cruise missile came in very low, searching for Putin's address on Kremlin buildings. Using the quick thinking developed during his years with the KGB, Putin grabbed a lasso from his saddle and snagged the missile when it slowed to read several mail box addresses. Putin wrestled the missile to the ground and dismantled the war head.

Upon hearing the news, the White House reported that the lasso was a gift to Putin from President Barack Obama. A genuine Roy Rogers Red Ryder lasso!

Syria Trap

This is a super-conspiracy theory to understand what is going on in Syria. The theory is like most conspiracy theories--long on plot, short on evidence. Here is the plot.

The Syria plot has ben planned by the Saudi and Iran leadership, which on its face seems ridiculous. Why? The Saudi population is 85-90% Sunni, while Iran is about 90% Shia, with great hostility between the groups. However, we assume that Saudi and Iranian leadership use Sunni-Shia hostility as a way to maintain internal control (much as US politicians stoke and exaggerate left-right or Democrat-Republican hostility as a way of maintaining their rule). The Sunni and Shia leadership are no different from Western politicians, in that their primary interest is maintaining their power and accumulating money.

In 2007 there was an Iran-Saudi summit, where both sides appeared to be friendly and agreed to find ways to reduce strife between the two groups. Most important, both Saudi and Iranian leaders agreed that their main enemy is the "imperialists" who do what they can to foster Sunni-Shia hostility, and that Iran and the Saudis must work together to limit the power of the imperialists.

Fast forward: Obama is perceived as a threat to all Muslim states because of his ideological bent toward democracy, his love of the Arab Spring, his policies to undermine all traditional leaders in the Middle East, and his love affair with non-fossil fuels (wind, solar, and the soon to be accepted fracking for natural gas). Obama is also perceived as being pro-Israel, and committed to keeping Israel as the dominant power in the region (which is why "no Nukes for Iran" policy).

So the Saudis and Iranians conspire to draw Obama into a new quagmire by leading him to draw the redline, and requiring him to follow through with a cruise missile attack. The US is loaded with super-hawks (e.g. McCain and Graham) that the Saudis and Iranians recruited indirectly through their ties with All-American hawks who are pro-Arab oil.

Assad is the Judas goat: he gasses his own people to get Obama to honor his red-line pledge (Aside: why else would Assad, who appears to have the upper hand militarily, risk offending the Western powers by using a non-strategic gas attack on civilians, not on insurgents). Yes, Assad did use gas in order to lure Obama into the trap.

Scenario: Obama launches cruise missiles against Syria. This serves to unify Muslims of different stripes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria (Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Hezbollah, al Qaida, etc.) against the US as the enemy of all Muslims. This also serves to weaken Israel without their US sponsor and to create unified anti-Israel sentiment in the region.

End game: Obama is weakened and unable to push his democracy agenda in the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to share control over the Middle East and to force the West to accept new terms for pursuing there interest.

End of plot.

Unions: Private Sector and Public Sector

This entry was a letter to the editor in July 2011, before public awareness of the problem of unfunded pensions in many US cities.

All workers employed by private corporations and by state, local, and federal governments should have the right to form unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. The question is whether both groups of workers should have collective bargaining rights on the same matters, such as wages, benefits, and work rules. Should there be a difference and why?

At present, there 7.4 million private sector unionized workers. They typically work for corporations that are owned by a small number of persons or a large number of stockholders. These corporations must make a profit for their owners or stockholders, and they do this by providing a product or service that appeals to customers, who may be other corporations or individual consumers. One of the things that corporations do to be competitive and profitable is to keep their labor costs as low as possible; this may be done with labor-replacing technology, by getting workers to be more productive, or by getting them to work for lower wages and benefits. One source of profits for corporations comes from the labor power of workers that is embodied in their product or service, and which has greater value when the product or service is delivered than the wages paid to create the product or service. The greater value can be viewed as the basis of exploitation of workers, because it motivates owners  to maximize their profits  by paying the least amount of wages and benefits. Profit maximization is also the source of the fundamental dispute between workers and owners.

In the case of workers and private corporations it is therefore essential that workers form unions to serve as a form of countervailing power in their relations with employers. It is also essential that workers have the right to bargain collectively concerning their wages, benefits, and job security. Also important for collective bargaining--but not as essential as wages benefits and security--are work rules governing such things as job assignments, work breaks, and safety conditions. In collective bargaining agreements workers often "give up" control over work rules in order to get more favorable wages and benefits, or they may do the reverse.

Workers in the public sector are employed in jobs that deliver "public goods" such as public education, police and fire protection, and infrastructure maintenance. Public sector organizations are not "owned" and therefore have no need to deliver a profit to owners or stockholders. Managers of public sector organizations must demonstrate cost-effective delivery of services, which may be determined by citizen satisfaction and student achievements.

In the case of public sector organizations it is essential that workers have union representation to collectively bargain over work rules and job security. But the right to collectively bargain wages and benefits is a problem for two reasons. First, public sector workers cannot point to the "profits" earned by their organizations and therefore their right to a greater share of those profits in the form of increased wages and benefits. There are no owners or stockholders who are "greedy" because they want to keep a larger share of profits. Second, the ultimate source of money for wages and benefits is taxpayers who have little opportunity to influence how wages and benefits are established. This is often done by elected officials at the local, state, or federal level, and unlike owners or stockholders,
they do not bear the cost of the wages or benefits that are approved. Public officials create an  "exchange" with public sector unions, and they provide the pensions in the hope of receiving votes or campaign contributions. This cannot be considered exploitation because both parties benefit.  But it can be considered exploitation of the third-party taxpayer whose voice is not heard but who bears the cost of the exchange. This exchange may be unethical but it is not illegal. Union advocates also point out that it is possible that the politician-union exchange may benefit third party taxpayers in the form of better wages and benefits for most workers, but that is difficult to demonstrate.

When elected officials provide better wages and benefits for public sector union workers than are enjoyed by private sector unions or non-union workers, they create division, mistrust, and anger among working Americans that is directed at other workers rather than at the elected officials responsible for the inequities. The disparities in the wages and benefits of union and non-union workers and the disparities in the wages and benefits of private sector unions and public sector unions must be addressed and remedied.

What can be done? We must begin by focusing on pensions. First, we propose that each state, or cluster of states, create a commission to develop proposals to establish pension equity between public and private sector union workers in their state or region. The goal would be to have all workers in a state under the same pension plan, meaning that they would contribute the same percentage of their earnings to their pension plan. The commission would present their proposal for discussion in  a variety of public venues around the state seeking citizen involvement and response. The commission would also report to the public the pension plan currently enjoyed by elected state and local officials; this would provide the public with a basis for comparison of plans for workers and officials. Building upon what is learned form citizen involvement, the commission would develop a revised proposal which would be submitted to voters in the form of a referendum. Second, we propose the formation of a national commission to examine the pensions enjoyed by all federal employees, elected or appointed, with he goal of establishing an equitable pension plan across all local, state, and federal employees. The focus should be on the percentage of income that is contributed by all employees/officials, the expected benefit to be received, and the start time and duration of the expected pension benefit.

After establishing guidelines for pension benefits for public and private sector workers, appointed government employees, and elected government officials, it will be possible to speak of pension plans as being fair. Perhaps this public effort at transparency and fairness in the rules of the game regarding pensions will spread by giving Congress and the administration in Washington the courage to raise taxes and means-test benefits for all those earning more than $100,000 a year. And who knows what might be next: a wealth tax, a new tax on companies that shift jobs abroad, and a tax on corporate earnings from overseas operations. This could be the beginning of an effort to reduce the levels of income and wealth inequality created over the last 40 years and recreating hope for all Americans. 

Spying on Americans, Before Computers

In the 1983-1984 academic year, a Purdue professor taught a special course entitled 1984. The purpose of the course was to evaluate the predictions made in the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell, a prophetic account of government repression and totalitarianism. Among the topics covered in the course were the Big Brother techniques of spying on its citizens. During the time of the novel, computers did not exist at today's level, so the techniques of spying were based on human-based surveillance. In the course 1984, the class read and discussed available literature on what was then known about government-led spying on citizens. Several members of the class could not believe the reports in the literature about the very large number of files reported to be held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, estimated at the time at 50 million. The class concluded that the sheer number of reported FBI files could not be based on real "enemies" but they had to be files developed on categories of persons in certain sensitive positions, like scientists, journalists, and maybe even teachers. The professor in the class told the students that he would try a real-life test by sending a request to the FBI requesting his file, and see what that produced.

A letter to the FBI was sent, and there was no response. The course was soon over and everyone had forgotten about the real-life "test" of who might be spying on Americans.. Then on March 13, 1984, the professor received a letter from the FBI stating that they had a "main file" on him which consisted of 20 pages, of which 15 pages were either "blacked out" or withheld under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. Material from the file that was available for view included newspaper articles about the professor's research activities and campus activities. The professor filed several appeals for additional information, and discovered nearly a year later that his file had expanded to 32 pages and that he was now suspected of being a threat to U.S. security and of having ties to the Communist Party.

The recent revelations about the computer-internet driven efforts by the National Security Agency to obtain records on all Americans is just another example of government spying on their citizens. It is likely that all governments spy on their citizens, but they may do so with different degrees  of subtlety and technological sophistication. The only protection that citizens have against the more or less repressive activities of government is the courage of whistleblowers, a vigilant press, and an engaged citizenry that says "no more."

Obama and Diversity?

We are troubled by the recent attacks on the Obama administration for the lack of diversity in the president's cabinet and other high-level appointments. We believe the criticism is unfair, as a cursory examination of President Barack Obama's high-level appointments reveals the following.

Overall: seven rich males and five rich females. Of these 12 rich males and rich females, two are rich Roman Catholics, two are rich Jews, three are rich Protestants, one is a rich Portuguese-American, one is a rich Japanese-American, one is a rich Dominican-American, one is a rich African-American, and one is a rich mixed northern European-American.

Now we ask you, is this not diversity?

Privatization?

We are liberal-left types across a wide range of issues, but we are also sociologists who care about precision in thought and language and the importance of data-based arguments. Thus, we are often at odds with colleagues who allow their ideological views to overwhelm their use of precise language and the need for data to support their views. Let us take the case of the term "privatization" which has wide useage but has re-surfaced in our community in connection with a new university president who was known for his past support of efforts to transfer government-based programs to the private sector, that is, privatization. So, we ask the following questions about privatization and would welcome responses and suggestions of things to read.

(1) What does the term mean with regard to specific social and economic practices and programs undertaken by government with taxpayer funds?

(2) What are some specific cases of pre-privatization practices and costs, and post-privatization practices and costs; for example, state owned and operated toll roads versus privatized toll roads.

(3) What are the benefits and costs of any case of a privatized government program? Who wins and loses what in the transition?

(4) What are the short term and long term projections about public and private options for useful public services? Are there limits to privatization or is the practice likely to expand?

(5) Is it important to make a distinction between the actions of local, state, and federal government with regard to costs and benefits of privatization?

In short, we would welcome a discussion of the exact meaning and costs of privatization.

The Arrest and Trial of an FBI Agent

In the turbulent 60s there was a local FBI agent who was assigned to the campus area. He was reputed to have been an Olympic-class runner in college. One of his responsibilities was to monitor protest and demonstration activities on campus. Several student members of SDS claimed that they had been told by the Agent that if they continued their activism he would contact their draft boards and try to change their draft status.

At an informal meetings of SDS members it was concluded that the Agent was infringing on free speech rights and the right to engage in public protest. There was general agreement that there should be a people's arrest of the Agent and that he should be tried in a people's court. This may sound bizarre today, but in the moment there was extensive discussion of participatory democracy and the need for people to confront established authority because it was held to be corrupt.

A plan was developed. A member of SDS would contact the Agent saying he wanted to talk with him about his activism and wanted to avoid any change in his draft status. He would offer to meet the Agent in the Sweet Shop in the Union building. The plan was that when the Agent sat down with the student other SDS members who were already in the Sweet Shop would swarm over the Agent and bring him to the lawn in front of the Union where a trial would be held. The plan went awry. The Agent came to the door of the Sweet Shop but would not enter because he didn't like the look of things. He turned and started to walk away and the remaining SDS students went after him. The agent exited the east door of the Union and proceeded to run north on Grant Street. Students gave chase but the Agent's alleged running prowess became a reality and there was no way that anyone was going to catch him.

The activists were discouraged but they decided to proceed with the trial with the the defendent in absentia. About 20 people gathered on the originally designated spot and the trial proceeded. The prosecutor was Don and the judge was Robert Perrucci. There is no memory of a defense attorney, but the jury consisted of all present. Witnesses described the Agent's attempts to harrass and intimidate them. The judge asked for a decision by a show of hands. The decision was unanimous: guilty!

ADDENDUM: Correction

There is a correction to this account of the arrest and trial of the FBI Agent. We uncovered a story in the local newspaper about this event. It reports about 100 persons at a "people's tribunal." and lists Robert Perrucci as chairman of the jury that issued the verdict. There is no mention of Don, but Jeff is mentioned. The account of the Sweet Shop incident in the newspaper matches the above account in general, but there is no mention of the foot race on Grant Street with the swift Agent.

In the search for the article on the "people's tribunal" we also uncovered a newspaper article and a photo of Robert and Carolyn at the base of the steps of the Executive building as 135 Black students are placing the bricks on the steps. Homer is prominent in the article as a spokeperson for the group.

Sometimes memory and data work together, but memory is a questionable source without supporting evidence. See Robert's article with Beth on the "Social Structure of Memory" in the International Journal of Contemporary Sociology.