Do want those 'Lexus lanes"?

Dear Mr. Mayo, you almost got it right in your commentary article in the Sun-Sentinel on Thursday, April 19, 2012, Does S. Florida want tolled ‘Lexus lanes’ everywhere? Almost. The term ‘Lexus lanes’  col;ors the picture accurately and you have posed the right question. But then you took it down to personal experience and simplification.

It is true that the system on I-95 in Miami-Dade County works. What is also true is that these express lane systems also work in other parts of the country without tolls and certainly without a financial ability test for access to public infrastructure. I have driven the express limited access systems in Chicago and on I-95 running south of Washington, DC, just to name two.

The issue is indeed “Lexus lanes’ as you have called the system, but it is about the right of equal public access to public infrastructure. Not whether it does what the traffic engineers desire. This also begs the question of what will happen if roads and highways are privatized.

This is an issue of commerce, and equal protection under the law. The use of public highways is after all supported by taxes in one way or another. A user fee that sets flexible pricing to exclude economically limited members of our community is blatantly unconstitutional. I keep wondering, where are all the consumer advocacy organization that ought to be up in arms, AAA, the ACLU, Progress Florida, etc.? Particularly with the trend towards spreading this concept of a ‘rich man/poor man’ highway system.

Our highways, bridges and public transportation infrastructure is supported by fuel taxes. There is a developing problem with the increasing efficiency and diversification of our fuel consumption that will reduce the funding available to maintain and grow this infrastructure. It does not make sense to design a system of having a limited pool of users pay for enhancements. A redesign of the fuel consumption taxes will be needed to capture a fair taxation for support of our transportation system. Perhaps a system that taxes odometer based vehicle usage would be fair. This is the real issue driving the bad idea of ‘Lexus lanes’. How do we pay for commerce infrastructure in a way that is fair and equal?

Mr. Mayo, you are a Commentator. But whether this is entertainment or opinion, you are a newsman influencing the public. You have an obligation to research and understand your subject. As a reader, I really do expect you to have a better understanding of the issues and the willingness to challenge the public when their rights to access are being infringed. Its just not a cute issue to be treated as “I think I’ll just sit on the fence here”.

Overturn the entire affordable care act? Hmmmm?

There is a national debate over the comments of President Obama to the effect that the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn healthcare reform in the Affordable Healthcare Act. His comments referenced the traditions of the past 80 years. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was called upon by Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to explain the President’s position. There are increasing speculations by media personalities that the Supreme Court is poised to find the entirety of the Affordable Healthcare Act unconstitutional.

The issue of universal health care is not a directly constitutional issue. The only issue that has been challenged at the Appeals Court level across the country has to do with the universal requirement to purchase private health insurance, a legislative compromise from the original proposal for a tax supported single payer plan. Consider, this is not the first universal healthcare coverage plan conceived and passed by Congress. Congress passed a law in 1798, supported by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that required all merchant marine seamen to contribute through a payroll tax to cover their healthcare for access to government supported federal marine hospitals and contracted private healthcare providers.

The problem with the current statute is that Congress rejected a single payer system supported by a payroll tax. If the concept of reduced healthcare costs through a universal payment system is to work then a private insurance mandate was needed. This strategy protected the private for profit health insurance industry and neutralized their opposition. This required a controversial payment mechanism that may be unconstitutional. But throw out the whole law? Consider the political consequences of that.

Although most people do not like this law in its current form, the support for the assurance of universal healthcare has been historically enduring. President Obama is only the first President to succeed. If the law is overturned in its entirety and President Obama is re-elected we can be sure of a groundswell of support for a single payer system. A Congress that is again Democratic would be far more likely to pass a new stronger health care reform law. And consider, there are three justices planning on participation in this ruling who have publicly known conflicts of interest (Kagan, Thomas and Scalia). What happens to them with a Democratic Congress when Article III stipulates their tenure as "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". Would they risk an extreme and constitutionally unsupported political ruling?

Taxing rich harms economy -- not so much

Some conservative commentators appear to be the victims of conservative think tank propaganda. It is common discussion that taxing the rich would detract from hiring. Lets get some things straight. “The rich” are paying taxes on income, or profit, if you will; not investment or operating expense. In fact, the best hedge against higher taxes may be to invest pre-tax income into increased business expense, such as production modernization, business expansion, marketing and...hiring.

Right now “the rich” are withholding some $2 trillion in investment capital as a hedge against the costs of borrowing and the potential of future business losses. Increasing the tax on gross personal income may help to shake some of that investment loose as a way of reducing taxable income for those “rich” who take their business profits as income. Wealthy people like, lets say Mitt Romney,  may find the creation of  privately held businesses and expansion, which produces hiring, as a hedge against showing a higher net income Very simply, tax policy can encourage simply moving personal income into corporate income that is taxed at a lower rate.

Lets try a little honesty in this debate over taxing “the rich”. Its not our job to protect the mega wealthy and it is not to the benefit of this economy to allow the growth of massive idle capital formation.

Syria - Who Let the Dog Get Loose?

I don’t understand our policy regarding Syria. We have taken a position in the past of protecting populations under direct attack by their own government. The UN resolution was vetoed by Russia and China, emboldening the bully dictator Assad to move troops, heavy armour and cannon against virtually unarmed civilian populations. And there is silence. Shouldn’t we be joining with the Arab League to drop humanitarian aid to those under attack? What a great diplomatic bonanza that would produce for the United States!

Wouldn’t it be wise to bring NATO and the Arab League into this to create an imminent threat of military intervention or support ala Libya for the free army? There are so many steps beyond sanctions and diplomatic withdrawal that can send a message short of actual direct military intervention. It is time to show moral leadership and stop the killing.

Child Abuse /Child Safety

Michael Mayo addressed the issue of child abuse in his Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel column today. He took the problem personally. Let me make clear that there is no treasure more important than a child who is safe, secure and untraumatized. There is no scourge worse than the narcissistic pedophile. Raising our children in an environment of fear, "stranger-danger" and forcing our fearful child care providers may be just as damaging to our children.

Mr. Mayo writes about Lauren's Kids, a wonderful organization created by an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse,  Lauren Book, educates parents and kids about sex-abuse. The importance of prevention, teaching about boundaries and warning signs cannot be over-emphasized. But emphasized out of balance with our need to have our children able to experience a safe, nurturing world also cannot be over-emphasized.

As is typical of Mr. Mayo, he cites the arrest of a 20 year old after-care counselor who worked for After School Programs, Inc. Michael Nathan Jones was accused of molesting a female child in his care. I don't know the circumstances, and neither does Mr. Mayo. but he goes on in his column to express concerns for the safety of his own daughter who attends a program run by the same organization. Lets spread a little fear.

To be clear, After School Programs, Inc. has been around in the public schools for many years and this is the first accusation that I have heard about.  My own daughter, now 20 years old, attended those programs from Kindergarten through 5th grade. I was not always happy about how some of those inexperienced child care workers handled their responsibilities and authority over their young people. There are a lot of ways to offend and abuse the sensitivities of young children. These programs do have to be vigilant in their selection of staff, supervision and management of the movement of children to ensure that they are protected.

And now we come to it. Those who care for our children ought to be people who love children and can be more nurturing than authoritarian. All children need to learn to have fun in a structured environment with clear boundaries and expectations. How much fun could that be if the staff are afraid of their young? As much as our children must learn about boundaries and danger signs, it is equally important that the child care providers are trained to teach about safety, boundaries and warning signs. Child care workers ought to be trained to provide nurturance for children, as well as practical role-modeling of safe and appropriate adult/child socialization.   We cannot fail to meet the needs of our children, including for safe hugs, wiping tears, treating wounds and all of the other ways that children expect to be loved in the simple world in which they reside.