Hasta La Gadget!

As the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to correct a mistake made almost a quarter century ago. She can reaffirm the party’s commitment to full employment.

In the summer of 1944, a time when the country was still fully enmeshed in World War II, the Democratic Party told voters:

“To speed victory, establish and maintain peace, guarantee full employment and provide prosperity –this is its platform.”

For the next 44 years, eleven party platforms reaffirmed the party’s commitment to full employment. The wording was often longer and sometimes comparably brief, but at each election the Democrats wanted to go on record as the party committed to full employment. Or at least they did until 1992.

That was the year that Bill Clinton won the Democratic presidential nomination. Bill Clinton quite openly described himself as a new type of Democrat. He distinguished himself from much of the party by supporting the death penalty, calling for “ending welfare as we know it,” and backing pro-business trade deals like NAFTA.

For new Democrats, a platform plank on full employment was old-fashioned labor and union-type politics. Clinton and his team had no interest in making this sort of commitment, as a result the words “full employment” do not appear in the 1992 party platform.

It’s now Hillary Clinton’s party. She will have control of a clear majority of the delegates in Philadelphia next month. This means that if she wants to reaffirm the commitment to full employment, she will certainly have the ability to include the language in the platform. (Of course Sanders delegates are likely to be fully supportive, since in both his presidential campaign and his time in Congress, Senator Sanders has been a strong proponent of full employment policies.)

Full employment is likely good politics, but it is also good policy. The only time in the last four decades where most workers saw consistent growth in real wages was the low unemployment years of the late 1990s. The productivity gains of this period were broadly shared, with wage growth at the bottom end of the wage ladder actually somewhat more rapid than at the middle and top.

In addition, the people who benefit most from low unemployment are the most disadvantaged. The African American unemployment rate averages twice the white unemployment rate, while the unemployment rate for African American teens is typically close to six times the unemployment rate for whites.

Suppose we could knock down the white unemployment rate by a percentage point with corresponding gains for African Americans and African American teens. It is very difficult to envision a social program that would provide the same benefit to black teens as a 6.0 percentage point drop in their unemployment rate.

As president, Clinton will have an immediate opportunity to affect employment levels, since she is likely to come into office with at least two vacancies on Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. She will also have the opportunity to reappoint the chair, Janet Yellen, or name a replacement in her first year in office. If these appointees are committed to having the Fed maintain a policy of low interest rates it can have a substantial impact on the rate of growth of the economy and employment.

In addition to Fed policy, Clinton will also be designing budget and trade policies that can have a huge impact on both the level and composition of employment. On the budget, Clinton should be prepared to run deficits to finance infrastructure and other spending, especially when the economy faces a large and persistent demand gap (a.k.a. secular stagnation). She should also support jobs programs for the most disadvantaged to give them a foot into the labor market.

Our $500 billion annual trade deficit is the major cause of the demand gap we face. Clinton should pursue policies to lower this deficit, most importantly by reducing the value of the dollar which will make U.S. goods and services more competitively internationally. We will not get back the 4.4 million manufacturing jobs we’ve lost since Bill Clinton took office, but a smaller trade deficit could get back 1-2 million, and that would make a noticeable difference in the labor market.

It is often said that after parties approve their platforms they begin ignoring them immediately. There is much truth to this line. But it is more likely that a second President Clinton will take seriously a commitment that she has made than one she has not. It would be a big step forward if she reversed a mistake made by Bill Clinton and reaffirmed the Democratic Party’s commitment to full employment.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

So you manage an enterprise and your commodity is healthcare service delivery. Your patients are indigent veterans, state prisoners, the forensically mentally ill and disabled. Over many years for various reasons you do not have the personnel to get the job done well. In some instances, you do not have enough persons to cover the basic responsibilities of the job adequately. What is your recourse? Possibly overtime, registries, hiring more well-trained personnel, recruiting and retaining the best workforce available.

Let us say that the options for managing the workforce are available at varying degrees over many years. Sometimes registries are preferable. At other times additional full-time hiring is ideal. Even the usage of overtime, at a premium associated with base compensation plus half per hour, may be worthwhile. In the last instance, using a management practice that extends a worker beyond the regular work schedule should be employed sparingly. It is expensive, can lead to highly disparate wages, and if not voluntary and negotiated can undermine employee morale.

The use of overtime is so scrutinized that one aspect of it, mandatory overtime, was banned in California in 2001. This prohibition only applied to the private sector. As one might imagine, the allowance of the practice in the public sector promoted its continued use. This detrimental administrative tool has now become so pervasive that over four thousand California state employees suffer the wrath of this insidious administrative directive on a regular basis.

Why so? People are paid, right? When a state prisoner, mentally disturbed inmate, or severely disabled service member needs the full attention of a healthcare provider, physical fatigue can be fatal. When a worker who has been repeatedly mandated finally reaches quitting time after a series of long days no one would want to be in passing traffic as they pull off the parking lot. When a parent planned for picking up a child but was required with less than an hour’s notice to stay at work for what might amount to another half-shift, it might not come as a surprise that the practice is no longer legal in the private sector.

The added challenge of mandatory overtime is that it undermines employee morale to the point that the overly-mandated workforce becomes highly transient. Case in point, at the homes operated by the California Department of Veteran Affairs, annual workplace attrition can average one-hundred percent. So you can end the year with an entirely new workforce serving those who sacrificed to preserve democracy. This is unsustainable. California can do better by its public employees.

This issue has been studied by a state oversight commission and through joint hearings of the Committees on Public Employee Retirement and Social Security. Previous legislation was vetoed with the directive to negotiate through collective bargaining. One could easily argue that the issue is less about a contract and more about the health and safety of the entire environment. This year a bill, a report, public scrutiny through the press, and collective bargaining are all attacking this bad management practice. Hopefully, the California Legislature and ultimately the Governor and his administration will see the light and do well by those who serve faithfully despite threat of bodily harm in state hospitals, veteran’s homes, and correctional intuitions.

Eliminating mandatory overtime in state employment is the honorable thing to do for these dedicated largely female champions of quality healthcare service delivery.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I am speaking with Harry DeMell, an Immigration Lawyer from New York City.

Schupak: So. The Supreme Court has ruled on the immigration case of Texas v U.S. It was a split decision, four to four decision. What do you make out of this?

DeMell: I think that this was the best of all possible decisions. It means that the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stands. Had Justice Scalia lived the law would have been struck down. Had it gone the other way it would have supported a significant extension of the president’s power.

Schupak: Remind me again what this case was about.

DeMell: Several years ago President Obama issued an executive order allowing certain children who came to this country without permanent residence, to stay here, work, go to school, and travel. Then two years ago he issued an order allowing their parents to stay the same way. That second order was challenged and was invalidated by the appeals court.

Schupak: What’s wrong with that order? It allows parents to stay with their children.

DeMell: It’s a separation of powers issue. The proper way to implement a policy like this is either a congressional act or an administrative one. There is law for this. President Obama did neither.

Schupak: Doesn’t the president have this power?

DeMell: Only pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. There is a way to proceed and President Obama ignored the act.

Schupak: But if the order does good, shouldn’t it stand?

DeMell: If the Supreme Court upheld it, it would grant powers to the president that would greatly expand his powers. You may want it when he does what you want, but you would have a very different opinion if the action was against your desires. One person, even the president should not have the power to change the law.

Schupak: So you wanted the action granted illegal.

Schupak: Not exactly. I think in the case of a real emergency the president should have expanded powers. This was not the case. The decision was good.

Schupak: Doesn’t the president understand the law? He was a constitutional professor in law school.

DeMell: Good point. He should have known better. Everyone seems to be result oriented. That want what they want, but in America the system is very important. That’s what the constitution is all about. We have procedures and those procedures diffuse power and make dictatorship difficult. I think this is a good thing and even a small step like this needs to be stopped. President Obama might have fixed this but chose not to.

Schupak: Why not.

DeMell: I think that he didn’t want to admit to a mistake.

Schupak: Forget the procedure for a moment. Don’t you think the action would keep families together and wouldn’t that be a good thing.

DeMell: Andy. If you grant these amnesties, and that’s what they are, you encourage millions of people to come here or stay here illegally. That’s not good. We are a nation of laws, not whims. It’s a necessary and proper function of governments to control their own borders. These orders undermine that effort. We can’t have a legal system that’s meaningless. If the president pardoned millions of criminals there would be an outcry.

Schupak: But you seem to want the president to have that power.

DeMell: Some things are better left ambiguous. The president has to be accountable to our laws yet in a real emergency he needs some flexibility. By President Obama issuing this order without following lawful procedures he might have upset the legal boundaries defining presidential powers. I believe the constitution and good sense were served by this decision. It’s now up to the next president.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

A number of faith leaders argued for the end of the ideology “love sinner, hate the sin”, in a previous post here, especially in relation to LGBT communities. These comments are important to voice. As a Christian, I too am outraged at the targeting of the LGBT community in the Orlando shooting. Christians should be humble and self-aware enough to realize that we have hatefully misrepresented God in trying to express what the Bible teaches, and that has contributed to the persecution and hate these communities undergo. We should repent of that and ask for forgiveness from God and the LGBT communities for our hateful past (you can find one good example of that here). I also realize that I cannot comprehend or appreciate the depths to which LGBT persons daily experience hate and ostracism in our heteronormative society. Nonetheless, for a Christian it is crucial to realize that God’s love is better than unconditional, and the idea of “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a helpful, though brief, way to express a core of Christianity.

Regardless of the “issue” of homosexuality, the Church ought to express the same gospel to all people regardless of their faith, past, sexual orientation, or sins. The incredible message of the cross of Christ is twofold:
1. Everyone at the core of their identity and heart is rebellious against the God of the universe. We have all, with no distinction, said to God in the deepest part of our soul – “I do not need you, screw you, leave me alone” – which is itself, ironically, a desire for death.
2. In Christ, we discover that we are far more loved than we could possibly imagine. This is not a love of mere acceptance, but a love that is both merciful to our sins and weaknesses as well as desiring our flourishing and good. It desires us to become more compassionate, kind, tolerant, loving, righteous, holy, and meek.

If we say that we need to ditch the clause “love the sinner, hate the sin”, we effectively lose the core gospel that is the only hope of salvation not dependent upon our own works. Jesus, Christians proclaim, died for us WHILE we were still enemies! We either don’t think we were ever enemies of God (and therefore have nothing to hate), or don’t think Christ’s death accomplished anything for our sake (and therefore have no assurance of God’s love).

The question is not whether we should “love the sinner, but hate the sin” – in fact, that is the most hopeful and loving message we have – but what exactly is and is not a “sin.” Though I believe that Scripture teaches heterosexual, marital sex as God’s design and law, homosexuality is simply one of the myriad of sins that we all struggle with and need Christ to die for – adultery, greed, covetousness, idolatry, selfishness, etc. Whatever it is that we worship, love the most, or idolize apart from God (and usually they are good things like family, country and country that become destructive idols) will become our identity and curse.

Christians, out of their devotion to the crucified Christ, should be most aware that when we say “love the sinner, hate the sin”, it is said to ourselves as much as anyone else. In fact, Christians should actually be more aware of our own sin than others because we see just how seriously God takes it! We do not proclaim our own righteousness and God’s hating of the “other”, we proclaim the perfect righteousness of the one God-man, and all of our incredible need for amazing grace. For all the hate and persecution Christians have caused against LGBT communities, all Christians must repent and try to “go and sin no more.” We are called to become the community of Christ on earth that shows forth the life-giving, joy-inducing presence of God.

The cost of following Jesus requires all people – heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, Democrats and Republicans – to die to their most intimate identity so that they would find life in Christ. Christians have done a poor job of expressing this radical “cost of discipleship”, as if becoming a Christian is like joining the YMCA. The tragedy is that the less we realize the cost, the cheaper the grace becomes. Let us not hide the depths of our sin, lest we discover that Christ died for nothing.

Consider this insightful quote, and I would encourage you to read it slowly, twice: “The miracle of grace – really, the wonder of God’s character – produces the miracle of our change. A sight of God’s holiness without a hint of His mercy will lead to either hopeless despair or to something even more awful, a pharisaical presumption of ability to ‘do His will.’ On the other hand, a mouthful of mercy without a somber taste of holiness seems to move to a brazen familiarity with deity that twists Him into everyone’s favorite uncle. Such intimacy is sloppy and undignified, and it eventually leads us to paint God with colors of our own making. The Bible portrays God in ways that ought to stun us. . . . Silence, a quieting of our relentless, pulsating fury toward God, occurs when that fury is at full boil and we meet the God we think we despise. We then find that He is all we feared, but infinitely more kind than we could have ever imagined. Godly silence always yields stunned joy.” – Allender & Longman

Our repentance needs to be ongoing and real, our awe of God’s grace must be unending.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Please don’t ever do this at home. Or do this anywhere, really. Mixing bullets with molten aluminum creates a helluva explosion—but it sprays the hot liquid metal everywhere, and that’s just a terrible idea. Plus, it’s guaranteed to end in fire and blood. Instead, watch the Backyard Scientist do it.

Read more…