The Progressive

President Obama on Social Security

Motivated by news that the Social Security disability trust fund could run dry soon, I wrote to my federal representatives. So far, only President Obama replied. Although his reply doesn’t directly address my concerns about the disability trust fund, he shared his position on Social Security in general:

Dear David:

Thank you for writing. It’s clear you have faced great challenges, and I want you to know I am listening. I have heard from many Americans who are concerned about their financial security in retirement, and I want you to know I am listening.

As President, one of my top priorities is keeping Social Security a rock-solid, guaranteed progressive benefit that every American can rely on. However, a Social Security check often is not enough on its own. After a lifetime of hard work, too many Americans reach their golden years unable to supplement their Social Security and enjoy a secure retirement. At a time when Americans are largely responsible for making their own choices about how much to save and how to invest their savings, my Administration is making it easier to prepare for retirement. In every budget I’ve put forward since taking Office, I’ve proposed legislation that would give 30 million additional workers access to a workplace savings opportunity. And last year, the Treasury Department launched “myRA,” a simple, safe, and no-fee savings program that stays with you even if you switch jobs.

At the same time, families who act responsibly by building up their savings should be able to trust that the retirement advice they receive is in their best interest. But right now, outdated regulations allow brokers to put their own financial gain ahead of their clients’ retirement security—costing savers approximately $17 billion each year. That is why my Administration is updating the rules and requirements for retirement investment advice. The bottom line is that what you earn on the nest egg you’ve worked a lifetime to build should work for you, not anybody else.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts. A critical test of the strength of our economy is whether hardworking Americans feel confident in their retirement security. As long as I hold this Office, I’ll keep fighting to preserve the basic bargain that anyone who works hard all their life can enjoy a stable and secure retirement.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

In all fairness, there’s little President Obama can do about the disability trust fund at this point. When the fund runs dry, he will have to make some executive decisions but he’ll nearly be leaving the Oval Office by then. In the meantime, he can only respond to what congress brings to the table.

Americans with Disabilities Act turns 25

Signed into law on July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) turns 25 today. Having become disabled just a couple of years before the ADA, it got me to thinking about how things have changed for my cohort in a quarter of a century. We’ve come a long way since then but still have a way to go.

Coincidentally, I was reading chapter 53 of A Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire) today and seeing correlations with how things have changed in the USA. The chapter is about Bran, who became paraplegic from a spinal cord injury. Although it’s not as accessible to him as it was before he became paralyzed, Bran has been able to get out and around Winterfell because of a number of accommodations. In this chapter, Bran rises to the level of lord in Winterfell. Yet when he hosted a feast for Lord Karstark, Bran overheard one of Karstark’s sons saying “…sooner die than live like that” and the other referring to him as “broken inside as well as out”: Bran the Broken.

Of course, that was all fiction but there’s truth within George R.R. Martin‘s musings. I have written about how accessible the National Park Service has made Yosemite, a place you would think of as very inaccessible. There are countless other cases that I haven’t written about in which public facilities and services have become more accessible to persons with a disability thanks to the ADA. I’ve even seen private businesses making increasing accommodations to patrons with a disability in recent years, with the greatest strides seen in communities like Irvine, California, that actively seek out ways to increase access for residents with a disability. Due in part to regulations enacted in 2010, the ADA has helped usher in an age of accessible design in America.

But there’s one place where the ADA, which is supposed to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for persons with a disability, has fallen short—in regards to discrimination. As other civil rights movements have discovered, you can’t legislate discrimination away. In 2014, only seventeen percent of Americans with a disability were employed (compared to 64.6% of those without). Most people with a visible disability can tell anecdotes about when people talk to their companion regarding the person with the disability, even though they’re right there together and could answer for him or herself. While many Americans are enlightened about the capabilities of persons with a disability, too many still discriminate against them based on misconceptions and ignorance of what a person with a disability can accomplish. Does anyone remember that president Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio?

The only way to overcome discrimination is to raise awareness about persons with a disability. Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the ADA is one way to do that. Although I would never advocate intentionally doing so, becoming disabled yourself is another way—and it could happen to any of us. Just over 1 in 4 of today’s 20 year-olds will become disabled before they retire. If you don’t have a friend or family member with a disability, don’t be afraid to speak with someone with a disability you happen to meet about what they are capable of and what they’ve accomplished. Most are willing to speak candidly on the topic and you’re certain to be surprised by the stories you hear.

It would be interesting to see what America will be like for persons with a disability in another 25 years. I will not likely be around in 2040 to see it. But I hope those Americans who will be will see even more advancements in the next quarter of a century than in the last.

Le Tour de France spoiler

As a cycling aficionado, Le Tour de France is one of my favorite sporting events. Although to many it seems like an individual sport, I find the strategies of the teamwork required to win the Tour intriguing. When it gets into the Alps, it’s inspiring to see who gets defeated by the mountains rather than the other riders and who can overcome the grueling climbs. It’s exciting to watch the time trial specialists race the clock. But there’s one part of the Tour that I dislike because it’s a spoiler: the final stage.

In Le Tour de France, we always (with rare exceptions) know who the winner of the race will be before the race is even over. The man wearing the Yellow Jersey after the penultimate stage is known to be the winner of the Tour when there’s still a stage to go. Even though the final stage of the Tour is tomorrow, I can already tell you that Chris Froome will win the 2015 Tour de France.

Instead of racing tomorrow, the entire peleton will be taking a leisurely 110 kilometer ride through the French countryside. No one will try to overtake Froome or even be riding hard. In fact, Team Sky will be drinking champagne and toasting their victory while still “racing.” If you’ll be watching a recording of the final stage, don’t bother avoiding news about who will win the Tour because it’s already decided. This celebratory end to the race is completely devoid of suspense and takes all the excitement out of it for me.

The Tour organizers should end each race the way they did the 1989 Tour de France. The race ended with a time trial on the final stage in which the riders rode as hard as they could instead of loafing off. Greg LeMond came back from almost a one-minute deficit to Laurent Fignon to win the Tour in the final stage. It was the closest race in the Tour’s history, with LeMond beating Fignon by only eight seconds after about 2,100 miles of racing. That’s an exciting way to finish Le Tour de France!

I won’t bother watching the final stage of the Tour tomorrow. I already know who will win. I find the ceremony of the ride into the Champs-Elysées rather boring.

Perfect is the enemy of a good deal with Iran

The USA and five other world powers (the P5+1) have finally reached a deal with Iran regarding its use of nuclear power. Before the ink was even dry on the agreement, politicians here in the US began decrying it as a bad deal. Their complaints are consistently about the terms of the agreement not being strict enough.

For example, Iran agreed to limit enrichment of uranium to 3.5% but critics of the agreement do not want Iran to enrich uranium at all. Another example is Iran’s agreement to allow international inspectors to inspect a suspect site with 24 days’ notice. Critics want inspectors to have unfettered access with no advance notice. Essentially, critics of the agreement are saying that the terms of the agreement should be terms that would be perfect to them.

The problem with that position is that the critics of the agreement are not taking into account how negotiation works. Each side begins negotiating for their perfect terms knowing full well that the other side won’t agree to them. Then both sides begin making concessions on some terms to get concessions on other terms that are more important to the negotiating party. Eventually through this process of give and take, both parties reach an agreement with terms that are not perfect for either party but are somewhere in the middle of what both sides would consider perfect. Negotiations require compromise to be successful.

Critics of the Iran deal think that the deal should be evaluated as a choice between the terms that were agreed to and the perfect terms. But that’s unreasonable because Iran would never have agreed to the terms that would be perfect for the US. Instead, the deal should be evaluated as a choice between the terms that were agreed to and the status quo. The status quo is no deal at all.

Absent the agreement, Iran has no limits on the amount of enriched uranium it can possess and the degree to which it can enrich the uranium. Absent the agreement, Iran does not permit international inspectors to inspect any of its facilities, ever, regardless of how much notice is given. Critics of the agreement voice concerns about Iran being able to produce an atomic bomb in ten to fifteen years. Yet before the agreement was reached, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Iran was just about a year away from having an atomic bomb.

Evaluated from this perspective, the agreement with Iran is a good deal because the terms reached are far more restrictive on Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon than no deal at all. Considering that seven countries were involved in negotiations, the international community is lucky that any deal could be reached. To borrow an adage from Voltaire, we should not allow a perfect deal to be the enemy of a good deal with Iran.

The West

I traveled around the country quite a bit when I was younger and was inspired by my travels to write the lyrics to The West. My brother Mike put the lyrics to some music he created and also came up with the melody and harmonies for the song, as well as the arrangement. Then my brother Daniel recorded it with me singing and Mike playing guitar. Play this video (above) to hear the song and here are the lyrics…

Watch the sun, sets in the west,
Drops beneath the ocean crest.
Cool waters, deep and blue;
Golden sunrays warm me through.
Pretty girls and sandy beaches;
Follow the sun to its far off reaches.

From the mountains to the sea I know that it’s the best,
I’ve been around enough to see my home is in the West.

Look to the mountains standing high,
Jagged peaks at the edge of the sky.
Blankets the ground, white snow so cold,
Frosting the pine trees countless years old.
Breathe in the air so crisp and pure,
Feels so strong, feels just like a cure.

From the mountains to the sea I know that it’s the best,
I’ve been around enough to see my home is in the West.

I’ve traveled the land far and wide,
Good times always there at my side.
Now through it all there’s one thing I see;
There’s only one place I’d rather be.
And when my soul yearns for a rest,
‘Turn to my home, back to the West.

From the mountains to the sea I know that it’s the best,
I’ve been around enough to see my home is in the West.

I know my home is in the West
I know my home is in the West
I know my home is in the West
I know my home is in the West

Health care still needs reform

Yes, I know president Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law five years ago and the Supreme Court recently firmly solidified it in our health care system. But Obamacare was not health care reform, it was just health care change. Sure, more Americans are covered with health insurance because of it but the health care system is otherwise business as usual.

That includes continuing skyrocketing costs. Health insurance providers from around the country are planning to raise their premiums twenty- to forty-percent in 2016—some even more. The ACA was supposed to drive down the cost of health care. But it should come as no surprise that it’s not happening. Even before the law was passed, Dr. Marcia Angell from Harvard University Medical School said “we’re going to deliver the private insurance companies a captive market.” What did anyone seriously think would happen when you give for-profit insurance companies a captive market?

I’ve been saying since the beginning of president Obama’s term that real health care reform means a single-payer system. It’s as true today as it was then. Thanks to the ACA, health insurance companies are more entrenched in our health care system than ever. Unfortunately, they are the problem not the solution.

Independence Day

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty; it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

Excerpt from a letter by John Adams to Abigail Adams written July 3, 1776

A tale of two Americas. And the mini-mart where they collided

https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/anand_giridharadas_a_tale_of_two_americas_and_the_mini_mart_where_they_collided.html

Forgiveness means the most when it is the most difficult to give. This TED Talk reminded me of the only time I faced Leslie Karen Rush (at least consciously), the woman responsible for making me quadriplegic. It was at the hearing sentencing her for felony drunk driving and the judge permitted me to make a statement before the court. I told Leslie that, although I held her responsible for what she did, I forgave her for it. I went on to say that I wanted to address her that day because I didn’t want her to go through the remainder of her life (we were both only in our twenties at the time) thinking that I hated her.

Fast Track to the sky falling

Congress has passed the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 known colloquially as “Fast Track” or trade promotion authority. The law allows the president to submit international trade agreements to Congress for an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. As expected, this has raised a chorus of voices from Chicken Littles complaining that the proverbial sky is falling. Specifically, they claim that:

Barack Obama is a dictator.
the USA has lost its sovereignty.
it’s “an illegal, unconstitutional, secret treaty.”

These are all absurd claims. As per the Constitution of the United States, president Obama cannot pass any treaty, which is what a trade agreement is, without the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate. Granted, Fast Track requires congress to make an expedited, up-or-down vote on trade agreements without allowing them to make amendments. But these conditions prevent trade agreements from becoming mired in filibustering and pork-barreling. Congress can barely pass a domestic bill. Could you imagine if the president had to not only negotiate every trade agreement with foreign countries but also negotiate the terms with congress? If congress doesn’t like the terms of a trade agreement as it’s brought to them by the president, they can simply vote it down and it will not go into effect.

The claim that the USA has lost its sovereignty is perhaps the most absurd of all. Section 108 of the law, explicitly titled “Sovereignty,” states:

No provision of any trade agreement entered into … that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.

No provision of any trade agreement entered into … shall prevent the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States, that State, or that locality.

This conforms with existing law which makes any treaty found to be unconstitutional null and void. Furthermore, congress can repeal any treaty they previously ratified by simple legislative action.

Finally, I’ll dispel the claim that the president can make secret treaties. The trade promotion authority requires the president to “provide, at least 90 calendar days before initiating negotiations with a country, written notice to Congress of the President’s intention to enter into the negotiations with that country.” It also says that “the President, at least 60 days before the day on which the President enters into the agreement, publishes the text of the agreement on a publicly available Internet website of the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

Keep off the blue stripes

The biggest challenge using disabled person parking spaces for drivers of wheelchair-accessible vans comes from people parking on the diagonally hatched area adjacent to the spaces. Even though it’s clearly delineated with blue stripes and marked “NO PARKING,” people frequently park there anyway. This can cause serious problems for vans with a ramp or lift on the side!

The area is created specifically to allow room to deploy a ramp or lift. Although it might appear like there’s a lot of room, people who use this area need the entire width of it to enter or exit their van. They need at least a couple feet of clear area beyond the end of the ramp to make the turn on or off of it. Parking just a couple of inches onto the blue stripe is often enough to make the adjacent disabled person parking space useless to the driver of the van, even if the adjacent space itself is unoccupied.

This forces the driver to find another more distant disabled person parking space (or to park diagonally across two normal spaces), when looking for parking. But it’s even worse when a wheelchair user parks in a space and returns to their van to find another car pulled into the adjacent space and partially onto the blue stripes while they were away from their van. This prevents them from even entering their van and forces them to wait until the other driver returns to move their car. This is a worst case scenario—the driver of the van could end up waiting around a mall parking structure for hours for the other driver to return if they went to see a movie or dine out.

Even partially on the stripes is a problem

Sadly, the biggest culprits are drivers of cars with a disabled person parking placard. You would think that they would be the most considerate of the special needs of other people with disabilities. Unfortunately, my experience is that cars with a disabled person parking placard park partially on the blue stripes more often than they park fully within the disabled person parking space. I’m not sure why they do—maybe it’s so their car doesn’t get scratched from the opening door of a vehicle next to it (which is a selfish excuse). But doing so to allow room to get a wheelchair out of the car is not a worthy excuse because they can use the blue hatching for that themselves.

This is not a rare occurrence. I encounter this problem almost every time I use a public parking lot. People driving cars with a disabled person parking placard often have a feeling of entitlement to park on the blue stripes but it’s just as much a violation for them as it is for a vehicle without a placard. I usually get push-back when I alert a driver with a disabled person placard to the challenge they have created for me, even though the hatched area is clearly marked that parking on it is prohibited.

Parking on stripes is prohibited for cars with a placard too

So let’s spread the word about this problem. Please tell able-bodied people as well as drivers with a disability how much of a problem they can cause when they park on the blue stripes. Explain that they don’t have to park entirely within the hatching (as in this photo) to be a problem, even parking slightly onto the blue border stripes is enough to be problematic. It’s critical to park a vehicle directly in the middle of any disabled person parking space that has another space next to it.