Uncategorized – Page 5

Don’t Blame the Illegal Immigrants!

With another presidential election cycle picking up steam, we once again hear the bellicose charges of would-be candidates regarding illegal immigration.

Most Americans, including legal Hispanic residents, agree that illegal immigration is a major problem. Most of their ideas for dealing with it are non-starters, however. Though a few candidates tout actions that would supposedly fix the problem, they only mention their ideas at election time, and then pay no further attention until the next election.

Memo to all candidates, of both political parties:

STOP IT! WE’VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE!

Republicans beat their chests and pledge to “BUILD A WALL!” That’s incredible. The party supposedly concerned about the out-of-control national debt claims that they will spend $500-billion or more on a wall.

Of course Donald Trump says that he’ll get Mexico to pay for the wall. Really, Donald? Really? If the Mexican government could find an extra $500 billion to spend, would they be encouraging their citizens to emigrate?

If the US decided to build such a wall, it would be 2,000 miles long. Noting that constructing 10 miles of Interstate Highway usually takes government-hired contractors at least five years, how long would it take them to construct a 2,000-mile long wall? Would any politician favoring this plan still be alive when the wall was finished sometime in the 23rd century?

Also Republicans, listen up! More than half of the illegal immigrants arrive under visas, and simply “overstay.” Those people couldn’t care less about that wall.

Some candidates appeal to frustrated audiences by promising to “Send ‘em all back where they came from.” Voters need only to do the math. If we loaded 1,000 people on buses every day to return to Mexico, we would send 365,000 people back every year. Since the illegal immigrant population is currently estimated at more than 12-million people, the task would require 33 years. If we factor in an estimated 10 percent annual population growth, the task would require more than 50 years. And if each returnee is entitled to a hearing in front of a judge, the process would require participation of 1,000 new judges, and 2,000 new lawyers. Even at low government salaries, the legal expenses alone would exceed $150-billion a year.

From the Democrat side, we see and hear even more odious rhetoric. The president and his sycophants point to statistics showing an increase in the number of deportations since 2009. However, the number isn’t adjusted to reflect the overwhelming number of deported people who return again and again, with many having been deported five or six times.

Listen-up, Mr. President! Perhaps you can choose the 1,000 worst criminals among the immigrant population and deport each of them 12,000 times every year. Statistically you could solve the entire problem, telling voters that you’ve executed 12-million deportations— the total illegal immigrant population.

The usual Democrat position is, “nothing to see here, walk on by”. In other words, they favor continuing as we are, and continuing to grow the illegal immigrant population. Since Hispanic immigrants—legal or illegal—usually vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, the party is happy to see that population grow.

By fighting to block voter ID laws, Democrats can count on millions of votes from illegal immigrants. Their labor union allies in many states also thrive on union dues paid by immigrants, so they are happy to support get-out-the-vote activities, the so-called “ground game” on election days.

Democrat spokespeople have added talking points, suggesting that illegal immigrants bolster the economy, and do not take jobs away from Americans because “ they do jobs that other people won’t.” Other than seasonal crop-picking jobs, there are few jobs that unemployed Americans won’t fill. Does anyone from a border state who sees their public schools overcrowded by immigrant children, or fights stop-and-go traffic 24 X 7 believe that immigrants are bolstering their economy? Since so many of those states and municipalities are facing bankruptcy, the economy doesn’t appear to be bolstered by the increased population.

The only part of the economy that’s bolstered by the illegal immigrant population is the business community that pays below-market wages to immigrants. Ironically we see an alliance of Democrats with big business, the same companies that Democrats love to castigate in their public statements.

AN HONEST SOLUTION TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE

Despite all of the political misinformation, there is a path to resolving this issue. First, voters must understand that the immigrants are NOT to blame. They have done what their home countries have encouraged them to do. They have sought jobs in the US, understanding that US politicians look the other way as a strategy to win elections.

US jobs are the key to resolution. The US government must take control of hiring of ALL non-citizens. Every employer must file a statement listing all employees who are not citizens. We must pass legislation that declares lack of compliance to be a felony that can be charged personally against any company officer or manager responsible for filing. The IRS should oversee this process and request prosecution of managers and officers that don’t comply.

Companies must be able to request employment slots for non-citizens. However, they should not be permitted to hire any non-citizens without slots.

If the fabled e-Verify system can accommodate these controls, all employers must be required to connect to it. If e-Verify isn’t sufficient, a new system must be designed and implemented ASAP.

When politicians and government bureaucrats adhere to this approach, the population of illegal immigrants will recede to a manageable level. Some immigrants will find that they cannot find legal work in the US and return to their native countries. The US should provide them with transportation back to their home countries and a small cash gift. But if they return to the US and apply for a job, they should be flagged and stand trial for fraud against the US government.

My book “The Victory that Wasn’t” offers a fictional alternate history with a different kind of Military, and better outcomes for all Americans. It’s available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/1GUL8oX

Response to a Letter from My Congressman

I just received an email from my congressman, U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell.

Eric is an active congressman, who tries hard to help his constituents. I will probably vote for him again, but the message he sent to us regarding the Iran nuclear agreement is extremely disappointing. Following is the email I sent to him in response:

————————————————————————–Dear Representative Swalwell,

I am extremely disappointed in your email stating your support for the president’s Iran nuclear agreement. As national polls demonstrate, the vast majority of American voters—both Democrats and Republicans–are against this agreement. I have read a great deal about its details, and I’m appalled that Leader Pelosi is driving congressmen like you to parrot President Obama’s sales pitch talking points. The statements that “This will ensure that Iran doesn’t become a nuclear threat,” or “The only other choice is war” are typical political manipulations and totally untrue.

Moreover, the part that the president and his supporters don’t mention is that within five years, Iran will have billions of dollars to support Hamas and Hezbollah to wage war on Israel. That is unacceptable, and the president must know that. In a few more years, this agreement would permit Iran to have missiles that can reach New York or Washington. That would be the ultimate Obama legacy. Please don’t be part of it.

In the last few days, we have also learned that there is a side agreement by which the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), has given Iran responsibility for inspecting its own nuclear sites. Can we really believe that Iran will abide by the agreement without hiding nuclear materials and development? The Iranians have proven that they cannot be trusted, over the past 50 years. How can you, Leader Pelosi, or President Obama seriously expect a magical transformation in the regime’s behavior?

As an independent voter—the kind politicians need to convince—I am well aware that your leaders in the House can make it difficult to go against partisan lines. Nevertheless, in the long run, voters respect and elect leaders who take principled stands on vital issues. The nuclear deal is one such issue. Regardless of talking points, you know that this agreement is the president’s attempt to sell another poorly conceived action to add to his legacy.

FYI, I voted for President Obama and encouraged many others to do so. Millions of us are deeply disappointed in his performance and wish we could undo our error in judgement. I am deeply sorry to have backed a president who believes that his personal narcissism is more important than the safety of the American people, the survival of Israel, and a nuclear-free Middle East.

I hope you will reconsider, and not bow to political pressures. Please vote to override the president’s veto, and to have him order Secretary Kerry back to the negotiating table. If we must have a nuclear deal with Iran, we can negotiate something better than a 2015 version of Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Pact.

Very truly yours,

Stephen Vachss, Dublin California

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Here’s Why I Enjoyed the Movie “Love & Mercy”

“Love and Mercy” is a biopic movie about Brian Wilson, the creative genius of the Beach Boys. I usually stay away from biopics about musicians and singers…especially movies that focus on a band or star performer that seemed special as we were growing up. Hollywood screen writers typically create story arcs around alcoholism, drug addiction, parental abuse, suicide or some other dark part of their subject’s life.

Interestingly, Hollywood can do biopics about sports heroes, and produce feel-good stories. But when they approach the music world, they usually go off the rails. Movies about Johnny Cash, Bobby Darin, Jim Morrison, Tina Turner and Janis Joplin (upcoming), somehow focus on the worst life dramas of the performers we love.

I initially thought that “Love and Mercy” would be like the others of that genre, focusing only on Wilson’s well-known mental illness. Though those problems are a major part of the movie, we’re eventually moved in a different direction…one that actually happened in real life. And as moviegoers we leave the theater smiling, retaining the iconic Beach Boys music in our memories.

The movie of course includes many songs we remember, if we grew up in the Beach Boys era. Throughout the story, yet another familiar song emerges—Surfer Girl, Good Vibrations, Fun Fun Fun, God Only Knows, Surfin’ USA and many others. Everyone in the theater seems to be thinking, “Oh yeah! I remember that one!”

The music brings us back to that time, and then we see the crushing mental effort and eventual breakdown experienced by Brian Wilson. Wilson’s plight becomes almost impossible when he comes under the legal guardianship of a maniacal therapist who controls him with overdoses of brain-numbing pharmaceuticals.

Finally, as in real life, a woman who loves him, fights for him and gets the therapist legally removed from controlling Wilson’s life. And we finally learn that Wilson recovered, married the lady, adopted kids, and still works with music…in other words, a normal life, not created by Hollywood.

Memo to Hollywood: Stop creating tragedy for the music and performers we love. There’s no way that I’ll buy tickets for AMY—the new movie about Amy Winehouse. I already know how that story ends, and don’t need Hollywood to make it worse.

How Does the SCOTUS Decision on Same-Sex Marriage Affect US?

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, cable news channels, social media, and politicians celebrated along with the LGBT community. Though fewer than five percent of American adults identify themselves as LGBT, politicians and pundits proclaimed the court’s decision as positive for all Americans, and a cause for celebration.

During the weeks prior to the decision, court-watchers commented that public attitudes had changed at an unprecedented rate, and that the court should follow that newly developed support and legalize gay marriage for the entire country. Though that message was repeated over and over again, it’s difficult to establish the extent of the actual attitude change.

As recently as 2013, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton publically stated that she believed that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Yet barely two years later she praised the court’s decision and celebrated. Does that sudden shift reflect a new consciousness, or mere political calculation?

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama stated many times that he believed marriage should be between one man and one woman. Yet he reported that his attitude “evolved” to full support of same-sex marriage seven years later. Interestingly, the president discussed American attitudes toward racism a few days earlier, and stated that “racism is in America’s DNA” despite 150 years of steady improvement in racial relations. If racism hasn’t been eradicated through 150 years of attitude evolution, is it possible to believe that negative attitudes toward gay marriage have evolved to enthusiastic support, after less than a decade?

Perhaps acceptance of gay marriage has been easier than changing racial attitudes, because far fewer people are directly affected by the new legalization. Unless we are supporting a friend or relative LGBT member, most people face no danger or loss from legalized same-sex marriage. It’s easy to say, “Why not”? Claims of defending traditional marriage are hard to sustain, since they come primarily from organized religions, during an era in which formal adherence to religious teaching is rapidly waning.

If we believe that attitudes have rapidly changed, how do we measure them? Some organizations conduct public polling on this issue and others analyze samplings of social media posting. Neither of these approaches can be dependable for this issue, however. LGBT leaders, along with the hard left, have done an excellent job in positioning same-sex marriage as a proposition that’s embarrassing to oppose. When confronted by pollsters or social media on whether people support gay marriage, they know that they will be criticized or rejected if they don’t respond with a “yes.” It’s therefore impossible to determine whether a supportive response is heartfelt or produced as acquiescence to social pressures.

Regardless of the politics and campaigning, LGBT members are rightfully celebrating. Though many sincerely want to marry their partners, marriage may not be the real reason for celebration. Many want to celebrate winning a symbolic fight for social equality. Any right denied to a group because of their race, religion, or lifestyle is reason to fight for people excluded or marginalized from the mainstream.

Why was this multi-decade battle necessary? Total cost for both sides—lawyers, court-costs, advertising, travel, venue rental, etc.—has been enormous. Perhaps we need to ask, why governments—state or federal—must be involved in marriage, often the most personal part of life.

Do governments really have a stake in deciding who will marry whom? Many countries don’t have a licensing process for marriage. Some people might counter that idea, saying that the government must register marriages for legal reasons, such as responsibilities for children, property ownership, wills, etc. But all such issues could be handled for traditional marriages, as well as same-sex marriages by simply filing a standard form. Government intrusion into this process has been the cause of an unnecessary fight. And involving the US Supreme Court in something that can be handled by religious organizations or by the individuals themselves is egregious overkill.

Another Tragedy-Another Round of Gun Law Bombast

With the horrific tragedy in Charleston, SC, the two opposing sides of the never-ending gun law debate have locked and loaded their rhetoric.

President Barack Obama made one of the first statements. Along with consoling remarks for the people in Charleston, he raised the gun law flag, and then surprisingly surrendered to the reality that new gun laws “are unlikely to pass anytime soon.”

This ongoing argument isn’t a simple Democrat vs. Republican spat. Some lawmakers from both parties protect what they call “Second Amendment rights” and pledge to block any new gun bills from becoming laws.

For fair-minded people listening to the two sides, most of the emotional arguments from either direction make very little sense.

For example, the pro-gun side calls their position “protection under the Second Amendment.” The actual wording of that amendment says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment was written more than 200 years ago. Since then, every state has established a permanent militia, usually called the “National Guard” of that state. Supreme Court cases have since ruled that the right to bear arms is not specifically granted by the Constitution.

But statements by gun law advocates are just as shaky. For example, when emotions ran high after the Sandy Hook School shooting in Newtown, CT, proponents of new gun laws implied that the tragic deaths of 20 children would not have occurred if we had better gun laws. They conveniently glossed over the fact that Connecticut already has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

Pro-gun people frequently argue using statistics. They will point to selective areas where people have the right to carry firearms, and make a case that those areas show a drop in crime. Unfortunately, these are mostly cases where “cause and effect” are not necessarily related. One factor that skews statistics is a change of demographics. Most violent crimes are committed by young men aged 18 to 25. As our population grows older, the percentage of men of that group becomes statistically smaller. We can therefor argue that the murder rate has gone down by a few percentage points, even though gun rights have had no effect.

Gun law advocates are equally illogical with their statistics. They point to trouble spots such as Chicago, New York and Detroit, where shooting stats are rising, even though the murder rate has slightly declined in most of them. Gun law spokespeople imply that those statistics demand gun laws to protect innocent people. Unfortunately, a large number of those shootings result from gang-related events. Do we really believe that gang members will stop shooting at each other because of more restrictive gun laws?

The never-ending debate is, of course, highly emotional. Nevertheless recent shooting tragedies—Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, CO and Charleston—have actually unearthed one point of agreement. Both sides understand that mental illness is a major driver of these senseless crimes.

Perhaps the two sides can agree to focus on the perpetrators, rather than the individual weapons that enable them. One fresh approach might be to require licenses for gun users, just as we do for motor vehicle users.

In many ways licensing gun users would be much like licensing drivers. Many people legitimately need weapons, just as many people need motor vehicles. Prospective drivers must have minimal training, and prospective weapon users should be trained before being allowed to purchase or use guns. We require drivers to pass certain tests and standards. Is it unreasonable to require gun users to pass analogous tests?

We require drivers to reach a specific age. In most states young drivers have stronger restrictions than those who are older and more experienced. Wouldn’t we want younger gun users to have similar restrictions? We license drivers only for specific vehicle types, usually only cars or light trucks. People who want to drive buses or trailers must have additional training, and must pass tests to prove their capabilities. Wouldn’t we require advanced training and testing for users of more complex and more lethal weapons?

Advocates of both sides of the gun debate would probably cite reasons why licensing users doesn’t provide a perfect answer. But everyone interested in finding a better solution might use licensing as a good place to start working together. Ultimately they must solve the root problem of detecting and treating mentally ill people who might become killers. But first they need to agree that guns themselves aren’t the real danger. The people who use them, however, are a continual threat to everyone.

How Do Low-Information Voters Affect All of Us?

Low-information voters can be very funny. Diverse TV personalities like late night TV comedy host Jimmy Kimmel, and Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, regularly send street interviewers to public places, to demonstrate public ignorance on things every American should know. Night after night we see random people who can’t name the US vice president, say that the US fought France in WWII, or that the Civil War was fought in 1920.

Most of us respond by saying, “It’s just entertainment. And it’s funny!” But these mini-interviews tell us something else. Though the quick-answer responses are probably selected for their entertainment value, they actually demonstrate a major problem that is turning elections into meaningless comedies.

Most of these TV field crews acquire 12-15 interviewees, from which the producers choose 3-4 as entertainment. Perhaps that indicates that 75 percent of people interviewed respond with correct answers. Our nationwide elections are normally decided by 2-3 percent. If the street interviews indicate that 25 percent of voters are clueless, how can we select candidates based on voter support for complex issues?

Before the age of social media, most voters read newspapers or watched TV news a few times a week. They may not have been fully informed, but they knew something about issues that they considered important. A majority of the nation’s newspapers have either folded from lack of subscribers, or are struggling to serve a shrinking readership. The network news shows, once the greatest influences, have now faded to irrelevancy.

Candidates for national offices previously ran campaigns around issues they considered important, and tried to win support from swing-voters. But for the past 10-15 years, candidates and their staffs have emerged with something termed “identity politics.”

Low-information voters hear little about actual issues, and select candidates who successfully attack opponents with negative portrayals of factoids about their pasts.

A few examples:

Senator John Kerry lost his race against incumbent President George Bush in 2004, largely on questionable information about his actions as a Swift Boat pilot in Vietnam in the late 1960s. Though memories of those events 40 years earlier by witnesses were split on what actually occurred, the negative story won out. Kerry was further portrayed as an effete intellectual, based somewhat on videos showing him windsurfing on vacation.

Former Governor Mitt Romney lost his presidential race in 2012, after being portrayed as a cold, uncaring multimillionaire. The opposition campaign drove a story that he had gone on vacation with the family dog’s kennel strapped to the roof of his car. Opposition also claimed that Romney coldly eliminated American jobs, or “shipped them to China.” This claim ignored the fact that his company’s business was in purchasing unprofitable companies and re-selling them after eliminating obsolete or non-competitive operations.

Though President Barack Obama won his presidential bid in 2008, he had to survive tales of his church membership led by a demonstrably anti-American pastor. He was further attacked as being a Muslim, based on his biographical account of living in Indonesia for a few years of his childhood. Neither of these attacks told anyone—friend or foe—anything about his presidential agenda.

Unfortunately, none of these races included clear positions on issues that were important to voters. Instead, each campaign staff concentrated on low-information voters and fed them personal attacks against their opposing candidates.

Elections like these don’t serve Americans. We can do better. If only a small portion of the billions of dollars wasted on election advertising could address methods of non-partisan voter education, voters would act much more intelligently. Perhaps leaders in this area can become creative enough to appeal to millennials. Maybe they can deliver education in an online game format. Or perhaps as a modern cartoon series. Maybe they need to give away a T-shirt to everyone who participates.

Educated voters might then see themselves as hiring managers, and see candidates as applicants who must clearly state their positions, then perform as promised during the election process.

Is the Government Listening To My Phone Calls?

Ever since Edward Snowden revealed US intelligence methods in 2013, a war-of-words has raged over the National Security Agency’s collecting phone call metadata. There are two opposing views on this issue, causing both proponents and opponents to make wildly misleading statements bordering on the absurd. Some of these statements are apparently the result of weak understanding of technology. Others focus on unsupportable legal interpretations. Still others appear to be bloviating only for political gain.

Interestingly, this is a non-partisan fight, with each side embracing allies who are usually fierce opponents. The people who want to shut down NSA collection of metadata include far-right libertarians as well as far-left progressives who want to limit the government’s power and protect personal privacy

On the other side, moderate Democrats and Republicans insist that the NSA program is a necessary tool for detecting and stopping terrorists.

To analyze the questions, we can begin with the feasibility of having “the government listening to all of our calls.” If such comprehensive monitoring were permissible, how difficult would it be for the NSA? How big would the job be?

The US has more than 300-million phones, in fact we have more cell phones than people. To stay on the conservative side, let’s assume that we have only 280-million active phone users. The average phone user might have five conversations daily, each of which might last for two minutes. Using simple math, we can then assume that the NSA would listen to 2.8-billion minutes of phone conversations daily. The agency has fewer than 20,000 employees in their Ft. Meade, MD campus. If all of them, including senior military officers and janitors listened to phone calls, seven days a week, they would still have to double the staff, adding another 20,000+ new employees. Obviously, that whole proposition is impossible.

Opponents of the program use the phrase “listening to your phone calls,” to attack a false premise. The NSA program has never been about listening to nationwide phone conversations. The NSA’s collection has been about phone call METADATA. That does not include any actual calls. A view of phone call metadata would show a small amount of computer coding that would translate to identifying the caller’s phone number, the phone number of the person called, the date, time, and length of each call. Metadata has no voices! It’s only a tiny computer record of each call, through each phone company.

Why would the NSA want these metadata records? How can they use them? Even if they included a record of a call from a suspected terrorist, finding it would be more difficult than a needle-in-a-haystack. It would be more like finding a needle in a 50-acre hay field.

Unlike TV and movie dramas where the good guys listen to calls by a bad guy planning on blowing up a building or becoming a suicide bomber, events seldom happen that way in the real world. The NSA system doesn’t look for a single conversation. It looks for call patterns that tell investigators where to look, whom to investigate, and whom to monitor. The NSA may discover a pattern that homes in on one or more phone numbers. If there is supporting information with a reasonable belief that the targeted caller may be planning or committing a criminal act against US interests, investigators must then go to a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court judge to request a warrant to listen to a suspect’s phone conversations. It’s much like a criminal investigation by a police force. When they believe that someone may be planning or committing crimes, investigators must secure a warrant for a wiretap.

The NSA is only looking for call patterns that tell federal law enforcement where and when calls are made, to or from jihadist groups.

Assuming that all of that is true, the opponents ask rhetorically, “Why didn’t the NSA detect the Boston Marathon bombers? Why can’t they point to one terrorist plot that they foiled?” The answer is that the metadata collection program is not about foiling plots. As always that difficult task is handled by investigators. The job of the NSA is to identify call patterns that point to people and organizations on which investigators must focus.

How about the laws? Some presidential candidates repeatedly state that the NSA program violates the US Constitution. Such far-fetched claims are untrue. They are usually based on the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of property. The NSA program doesn’t involve property. The Supreme Court decided many years ago that recording metadata of phone calls doesn’t violate the Constitution. In layman’s terms, metadata is analogous to the information on an envelope sent through the mail. It may identify the sender, (return addressee), the receiving addressee, the date and time the envelope was sent. It doesn’t expose the contents to searches.

Program opponents also claim that a panel of Federal judges declared that the law doesn’t permit bulk collection of metadata, and that the NSA program is therefore unconstitutional. That claim is untrue. The judges simply stated that the Patriot Act doesn’t specifically permit the NSA’s collection program. The decision indicated that the program needs a supporting law, and that Congress should pass one if it wants to continue it. Congress has since passed the required legislation.

Does this mean that proponents of the program are truthful? Absolutely not. Voices from both parties claim that the NSA program catches would-be terrorists before they can act. They claim that the program is absolutely necessary to protect America. There is no track record to support such claims, and it’s unlikely that the NSA program will have that kind of impact. The program is a smart tool to help investigators, but it’s only one of many. Halting the program for a few days will not put the country in grave danger.

Our greatest danger is that public bickering by pundits, politicians and media people seeking headlines takes America’s attention away from vital issues that could endanger everyone.

We should Be Mad as Hell at DOJ Fining Big Banks Only $5.3-Billion

As reported by USA Today, five major banks accepted a plea bargain to criminal charges from the Department of Justice, and agreed to fines totaling $5.5 billion to settle charges for manipulating foreign exchange rates.

Why should we be mad about that? Media people showed very little interest in this story, because they’re preoccupied with police chases and street demonstrations. Perhaps reporters don’t understand the potential impact of what the big banks have done.

Predictably, the DOJ is flexing its muscles, taking bows and crowing about the size of the fines. Nevertheless, the first reason to be mad (or at least disgusted) is that the DOJ fined the banks, and not the doers, the executives who made the trades or approved of the entire operation. That means that the actual perpetrators are untouched, and the shareholders of each bank are stuck paying the $1-billion+ fine.

A conspiracy to share trade information is simply insider trading by giants. By comparison, Martha Stewart served five months in prison for covering up an insider trade worth about $45,000. But the traders and executives of the five giant banks colluded on trades for six years, netting billions, possibly trillions in profits. Yet they received no jail time, and no personal fines.

To compare further, Stewart’s transaction had virtually no impact on the world, other than getting some DOJ lawyers mad enough to be vindictive. The giant banks, however, probably had highly paid teams of lawyers from both sides, bargaining 24 X 7. As always, lawyers on these matters earn about $1,000 hourly while bargaining to protect crony capitalism.

The impact of this criminal conspiracy is probably much greater than the DOJ announced. We’ll probably never know details, because the plea bargain almost certainly included a non-disclosure agreement. But we do know this: Trading in foreign exchange (FOREX) markets averages $5.3 trillion per day. It is by far the largest marketplace in the world, at about 30 times the value of trades on the New York Stock Exchange. The world’s largest global banks handle the vast majority of these trades. Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS, all charged with criminal actions, may be the biggest players in this marketplace.

How does all of this work?

For a simple picture of the FOREX marketplace, begin by understanding that everything imported to the US from another country requires a foreign currency exchange. For example, Walmart might purchase ongoing shipments of clothing made by a Chinese company for $50-million. They must pay the Chinese company in Yuan, and therefore must trade 50-million US dollars to an equivalent value in Yuan. By the same process, the Chinese might purchase 1,000 automobiles from a European manufacturer. They must pay in Euros, and therefore convert their Yuan to Euros. Each of these transactions is handled by a third party, often one of the five banking giants fined by the DOJ. The banks receive a fee for their service, but can capture greater profits. They can buy or sell futures contracts, for their clients, (e.g. Walmart) or themselves, based on the exchange rate at any given future date.

Continuing with the Walmart example of $50-million in payments to the Chinese supplier, their payments will usually be due months after they make a deal. That means that the actual number of dollars that they pay to the Chinese company will depend on the exchange rate at the date of their payment. Exchange rates change many times every day, and often have wild swings that can hurt either the paying company or the receiving company. If any bank can collude with others to artificially fix the rate at a pre-determined level, they can make a handsome profit by “betting” on the level by owning the future contracts at each of their predicted levels.

What does this all mean?

The real size of the criminal profits on these deals can be so large that they can create inflation in our prices at Walmart, or anyplace else where we buy things made outside of the US. The number of transactions tainted over five banks cheating for six years may not even be known by the banks themselves. Teams of auditors would probably need years to measure the impact on the US economy.

Newly appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch is probably too new in her job to have directly investigated details of the conspiracy. she called the banks actions “brazenly illegal behavior engaged in on a near-daily basis.” She said, “The traders’ actions inflated the banks’ profits while harming countless consumers, investors and institutions around the globe — from pension funds to major corporations, including the banks’ own customers.

That’s why we should be mad. White collar criminals may have indirectly cost each of us thousands of dollars. They rigged the game. Yet they skated. None of them even had a personal fine. Did our political leaders protect the middle class? Isn’t this scheme reminiscent of the packaging of junk mortgages that nearly cratered the US economy and left it crippled since 2007? Shouldn’t these people receive serious jail time? That’s why we should be mad as Hell!

My book “The Victory that Wasn’t” offers a fictional alternate history that includes a different kind of US president, and better outcomes for all Americans. It’s available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/1GUL8oX

Who’s Responsible for the Philadelphia Amtrak Crash?

Immediately following reports of the Philadelphia Amtrak disaster, a leading Senate Democrat proclaimed that the disaster was caused by Republican budget cuts. The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives retorted that the tragic accident was caused by a train travelling at high speed over a bridge. With these two statements, we heard a Democrat sounding like Chicken Little. And a Republican sounding like a Microsoft error message—offering a statement that’s technically correct, but has no informational value whatsoever.

Perhaps the Democratic spokesperson was correct in assuming that infrastructure failure contributed to the Amtrak tragedy. The final NTSB verdict on the accident may or may not pinpoint the much larger question of America’s crumbling infrastructure. Nevertheless, thousands of our bridges need serious repair or replacement. Political leaders in both parties share the blame equally, for these long-time disasters-in-waiting,

Speaking on CBS 60 Minutes, politicians and construction experts unanimously agreed that our dangerous infrastructure has been well known for years. But they say “no one knows how to find the billions of dollars needed to fix it.” Really? Isn’t the number one responsibility of our government to protect us from harm? Republicans and Democrats need to realize that they will be responsible for predictable disasters that kill hundreds or thousands of people in the next few years.

President Obama actually made a small effort to help repair Amtrak’s tracks by including $1.3-Billion in his 2009 -2010 stimulus package. Predictably, it was a typical big-government event—throwing money at a generic problem with no plan. Predictably, no one seems to know how the money was used, or if it helped in any way. No one seems to know how the amount was calculated, though most agree that it wasn’t enough.

So the pols and pundits continue to debate, and the infrastructure continues to crumble. Their only agreement seems to be that they don’t know where to get enough money to fix the problem, without raising taxes.

Well politicians, I’d like to suggest a workable solution. You may call my suggestion simplistic, but you will find hundreds of examples in private companies where this approach works every day.

Any successful company would:

1. Begin with a comprehensive plan. Have the plan produced by a professional consulting firm. Give planners everything they need. Give them an opportunity to work without interruption by congressional committees, lobbyists or White House political staffers. But give them only a finite time to finish their work. Six months should do it.

2. Have the Army Corps of Engineers audit the work and certify it.

3. Go out for a pre-bid, and determine the work required, the cost, timeline and priorities.

4. Fund the work by reducing the budget of every federal government department by 1 percent. When departments cry and gnash their teeth at the 1 percent reduction, claiming that automatic salary increases required by union contract require more funding, lower headcount by freezing replacement hiring for people who retire or leave the their positions.

This is simple management 101. Live within a budget. Manage your resources. Don’t complain.

And do your jobs. Make America safe again. We’re depending on you.

Are 2015 Protests Like Anti-War Protests of the ‘60s?

Watching the Baltimore and Ferguson protests on cable news recently, I thought of the anti-war demonstrations I covered long ago during the Vietnam years. Certainly that was a very different era, yet there were some striking similarities. In fact all of the protests and demonstrations of the past half-century–even those in Egypt’s Tahir Square and China’s Tiananmen Square—have a lot in common.

Commonality 1: Most protesters have legitimate grievances, though real problems are typically drowned out by noisy opportunists.

Commonality 2: Protests frequently focus on one emotional rallying point that is only a tiny piece of a much larger whole.

Commonality 3: Street demonstrations command maximum media attention, especially when they turn violent, yet they seldom produce the change that protestors want.

Commonality 4: Protestors who demand the arrest of a perceived transgressor, resignation of an official, or end of a standard government policy, seldom offer a viable fix to any problems.

Commonality 5: Politicians, pundits and religious leaders invariably create distorted versions of each situation, blending facts with fiction to advance their own agendas.

Commonality 6: Despite news media reporting, all protestors don’t necessarily have the same issues. Regardless of rhetoric by protest leaders, people often participate for widely diverse reasons, beliefs, and behavior.

In the recent Baltimore protests, the loudest voices seemed to be against the police department. Protest leaders cited the death of a young African American man who died while in police custody. Although the actual circumstances of the man’s death were not totally clear, a death under those circumstances and the sight of a grieving family would always elicit anger and sympathy from any group. Nevertheless the senseless death itself wouldn’t normally have brought hundreds of angry people to the streets.

Protest groups generally focus on the rhetoric of a small number of loud, articulate agitators. However, the overwhelming majority of participants are seldom violent, and aren’t anarchists. Though the loudest voices railed against the police department, Baltimore’s real issues are more numerous and complex.

Most Baltimore protestors are angry about poverty, lack of opportunity and a disproportional percentage of young black men being in jails or prisons. Though the police force is the face of the law, cops aren’t the cause of these very real problems. Poor people arrested for crimes seldom have effective legal representation, and typically go to prison, following quick plea bargaining sessions. The legal system doesn’t have the resources—courtrooms, judges, lawyers, and support staff—to treat all accused people fairly. This is a money issue, and a political issue. Every large city seems to have the same situation, typically created by the same politicians that continue to win elections.

Despite their commonalities with other kinds of street protests, anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam years eventually succeeded. To write about those events, I chatted with numerous street protestors and realized that their anger wasn’t against the war alone. Nevertheless it’s easy to argue against people dying in wars, so battlefield deaths always made headlines.

Why was the result of the anti-war demonstrations different from the other protests that have followed? Despite the comparatively small numbers of protesters who argued against the war, the protests gained traction, thanks to media attitudes. The press corps, the only source of information before the era of the Internet and social media, covered protest events as though protesters were a monolithic force. Public opinion however, remained evenly split between those who supported the war effort and those who fought against it. Then one horrible event—the massacre at My Lai—disgusted the American public, and created broad-based rejection of the military.

That single event provided a tipping point. My Lai created more backlash than all of the anti-war protests combined. The combination of media, protestors, and an indisputable massacre of defenseless civilians, forced the US Government to accept the Paris Accords and pull out of Vietnam. That’s how the anti-war protestors won.

My book “The Victory that Wasn’t” offers a fictional alternate history of the final Vietnam war years, with much better outcomes for all Americans, including behind-the-scenes secrets that changed everything. It’s available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/1GUL8oX