15 Steps Toward a Happier, Healthier American in 07

1. Get the troops out of Iraq. Of course this is easier said then done, since conditions on the ground have become far too dangerous to allow for an orderly exit. Outward bound truck convoys, for example, would attract roadside bombs and other unfriendly send-offs. The best plan is to find out how thousands of Iraqis are managing to flee the country every day and take the same route.

2. Fight global warming, obesity and traffic congestion by constructing bike paths on all highways and roads.

3. End the war on drugs, thus saving over $30 billion a year. At the same time, gently wean current meth addicts onto Starbucks double shot espresso.

4. Raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and establish a maximum wage of, say – generously speaking -- $5 million a year.

5. Repair the economy of Mexico so that erstwhile Mexican agricultural workers – displaced by big agribusiness in the wake of NAFTA – no longer have to sneak across the border in order to make a living.

6. Expand Medicare to cover Americans of all ages. (Remember, we just saved $8 billion a month by ending the war.)

7. Require gyms to use the power generated by their cardiovascular machines to provide their own air-conditioning and lighting.

8. Put the President in AA – Aggressives’ Anonymous. We thought he had hit bottom with the November election, when he discovered that nobody likes him. Then we thought that a family intervention in the form of the Iraq Study Group would sober him up. But no, he’s demanding another binge, or as he puts it “surge.”

9. Fix Medicare so it doesn’t require supplementary insurance. Also fill in the notorious “doughnut hole” in Part D, preferably not with Krispy Kreme.

10. Establish wildly overpriced services for people who derive a sense of status from the prices they pay. The New York Times reported on December 12th that colleges find they can increase their popularity by raising tuition. OK, so let’s have a chain of private colleges charging $100,000 a year and up where the price is part of what you pay for. Maybe we need whole segregated shopping zones full of custom-priced restaurants, etc. where the ultra-rich can pay the exorbitant prices they crave, without driving up prices for the rest of us. Entrepreneurs, are you listening?

11. Demand that pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs in this country for no more than they sell them in Canada, or would that be too much of a patriotic sacrifice?

12. Stop CNN anchor chatter. No, Miles, Tony, Soledad and the rest of you: In the few minutes of your time that isn’t devoted to Geico commercials, we don’t want to hear about your weekend.

13. Create a new airline –Libertarian Air– for people who would rather risk being blown up than be treated like potential mass murderers every time they fly.

14. Encourage street fairs, block parties and farmers’ markets.

15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing.

Comments

[realpc]

Most of these are actually pretty good, I think. As someone who would always rather bike than drive, I like suggestion #2. But I would go farther with it -- get the police to start giving tickets to drivers who think trying to kill bicyclists is fun.

I thought #7 was my idea. Why the heck aren't they doing that already??

[Barbara E]

Ah, at last we find common ground! And yes to ticketing car drivers who try to kill us.

[lilalia]

Bullseye on every one of your thoughts.

[Lynn]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce and a monumental waste of money that it's tragic that politicians won't even entertain the idea of changing course.

[realpc]

You have to define what you mean by "drugs." What would happen if all drugs were legal? Would you be able to get anything you want without a prescription? There are many very dangerous drugs that have to be controlled. I can't imagine just letting anyone have anything.

On the other hand, if "drugs" just means marijuana, then it might as well be legal, since it is not dangerous. It all depends where you draw the line. If you make crack legal, what would be the result? We can only guess.

Making all drugs legal might get rid of the criminal drug industry. But it seems to me that prescriptions would still be necessary. Are you saying no substances need to be controlled?

[ZSB]

15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing.

Finally, Barbara admits her real agenda. That the middle class should pay very high taxes, live in small apartments, and ride crowded, unsafet public transportation so that mode upper middle class, elitst , white women can live their spend their lives living as writers in Burlington, Vermont with free healthcare, free housing, and unlimited college tuition.

[Heavy]

Libertarian Air is obviously a joke, as is the Aggressives Anonymous for Bush. Both are just playing to a frustrated public for approval and make little sense. Is that airline going to fly in special air and to and from special airports that have no contact with the safety-concerned world? Because if some fools roll the dice on airplane safety we all become less safe. All they have to do is plow that Libertarian Airplane into a highly occupied public space.

[lc2]

C'mon, ZSB ... it's supposed to be a joke. But you sound suspiciously like a troll from the past. Or maybe all trolls exist to ferret out potential hypcrisy so they can invalidate everything of value.

Certainly no more hypocritical than yellow ribbons attached to the radio attenae of Suburbans, after all.

[chris]

barbara ostensibly jokingly (though secretly seriously)writes:

1. Get the troops out of Iraq...The best plan is to find out how thousands of Iraqis are managing to flee the country every day and take the same route.

Their moves are hardly a secret. However, this suggestion is another way of suggesting that our military forces in Iraq should go AWOL en masse. Sorry. Won't happen.

She writes:
"2. Fight global warming, obesity and traffic congestion by constructing bike paths on all highways and roads."

I see. Then we will clog our graveyards with bikers killed along highways where cars go 60-70 mph. There are already 45,000 highway deaths per year in the US. Why take a step to multiply this number?

She wrote:
"3. End the war on drugs, thus saving over $30 billion a year. At the same time, gently wean current meth addicts onto Starbucks double shot espresso."

Too funny for me.

Sure, decriminalize all drugs. That's okay. But there will be public health consequences. There's already a war against pharmaceutical companies underway. Who would be sued when someone ODs on his street-bought recreational drug?

She wrote:
"4. Raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and establish a maximum wage of, say – generously speaking -- $5 million a year."

Ah. The government, or in this case, Barbara, knows what's best for everyone in the country when it comes to paychecks.

What would happen in BarbaraLand? Well, CEOs would relocate corporate headquarters to sites beyond the jurisdiction of BarbaraLand.

Worse, for many, would be the changes in pro sports. All athletes would establish residences outside of BarbaraLand. Maybe US baseball would relocate to Japan.

She writes:
"5. Repair the economy of Mexico so that erstwhile Mexican agricultural workers – displaced by big agribusiness in the wake of NAFTA – no longer have to sneak across the border in order to make a living."

Despite having Vincente Fox as president, Mexico is an oligarchy ruled by a number of powerful families who control a significant portion of everything -- from oil to TV.

Those who control the oil have shown no willingness to increase oil production despite the current high price of the commodity. Nice bunch.

She writes:

"6. Expand Medicare to cover Americans of all ages. (Remember, we just saved $8 billion a month by ending the war.)"

It's commonly stated that 47 million Americans are uninsured. To extend coverage to everyone of every age would require a tax increase of such magnitude the country would keel over in bankruptcy. Canada would look like a tax haven, and that's where a lot of capital would go.

She writes:

"7. Require gyms to use the power generated by their cardiovascular machines to provide their own air-conditioning and lighting."

This is nothing more than the well established concept of co-generation. American industry always tries to utilize every last little BTU of energy available from any and every source.

She writes:

"8. Put the President in AA – Aggressives’ Anonymous. We thought he had hit bottom with the November election, when he discovered that nobody likes him. Then we thought that a family intervention in the form of the Iraq Study Group would sober him up. But no, he’s demanding another binge, or as he puts it “surge.”"

Okay. Well, there's nothing like rooting for the bad guys to win.

She writes:

"9. Fix Medicare so it doesn’t require supplementary insurance. Also fill in the notorious “doughnut hole” in Part D, preferably not with Krispy Kreme."

This issue may trouble some people, but it's part of a larger issue -- The Cost of Healthcare. The more healthcare that's offered, the more that will be demanded. Healthcare costs cannot be contained. Period.

We are brilliant at developing new and better ways to treat every ailment under the Sun. Thus, more and more people will suffer and recover from more and more illnesses to finally expire after very expensive last-ditch efforts. Our generosity will bankrupt the country.

She writes:

:10. Establish wildly overpriced services for people who derive a sense of status from the prices they pay. The New York Times reported on December 12th that colleges find they can increase their popularity by raising tuition. OK, so let’s have a chain of private colleges charging $100,000 a year and up where the price is part of what you pay for."

The entire Ivy League could charge $100K and have no shortage of students. In fact, if ability to pay was one criterion for admission, those schools would still have to reject academically qualified students.

She writes:
"Maybe we need whole segregated shopping zones full of custom-priced restaurants, etc. where the ultra-rich can pay the exorbitant prices they crave, without driving up prices for the rest of us."

Come to New York. Plenty of shopping venues fitting this description exist. You'll find them in other cities around the world, as well.

She askes:
"Entrepreneurs, are you listening?"

They listened, they've arrived and they've got customers.

She fantasizes:

"11. Demand that pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs in this country for no more than they sell them in Canada, or would that be too much of a patriotic sacrifice?"

I see. Government pricing for drugs. Yeah, that'll work. In any case, if the prices were set at parity between the two countries, the Canadian prices would rise. It's that simple. Drug companies have no obligation to sell to Canada. It's done mainly to keep competitors at bay in Canada.

She jokes, sort of:
"13. Create a new airline –Libertarian Air– for people who would rather risk being blown up than be treated like potential mass murderers every time they fly."

Airlines are not in charge of airport security. Airports handle that function. The federal government, that at other times Barbara wishes were omnipotent, is the employer of all those surly security people fiddling with your underwear.

She writes:

"14. Encourage street fairs, block parties and farmers’ markets."

New York City is over-run with street fairs, block parties and farmers' markets. I'm not sure if it's possible to increase their numbers by much.

She daydreams:

:15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing."

We have that. It's called pro sports. Sometimes you get paid for playing college sports too. But those pro-sports guys often earn more than the salary cap soon to exist in BarbaraLand.

Meanwhile, it's not likely the women in pro sports will earn the same as men. I'm sure there must be something sexist about that. But if there is, it's all in the minds of fans who would rather spend their money watching men compete rather than women. They must be guilty of something.

[GreggB]

Speaking of resolutions, how about resolving to end the ridiculous and outrageous salary/benefit packages that CEO's "earn" and use as golden parachutes when things go bad? To wit: see the nationwide press coverage of Home Depot's ex-CEO, who just got a cool $210 million dollars for five years "work" and a flat stock price.
Though it seems that this time, the stockholders are restless about it...about damn time, too. This is just the "old boy" network feeding each other.

Boy, his severance sure beats my $200/week (and no severance) on unemployment while I look for a job because my position was "eliminated" due to "budget issues" in November.

Please don't try to tell me that he (or anyone else) is "worth" that kind of money. If he had cured cancer or something, maybe. But shilling nails and plywood? Give me a break!

[chris]

GreggB wrote:

"Speaking of resolutions, how about resolving to end the ridiculous and outrageous salary/benefit packages that CEO's "earn" and use as golden parachutes when things go bad?"

The government has nothing to say about this, nor should it.

Stockholders are a different matter. Is Bill Gates worth $50 billion? By every measure the world says he is.

Frankly, I would not structure pay packages like the one Nardelli got from HOme Depot. But the deal was struck when he signed on -- not when he was booted.

The HD board offered him a big package because he had a history of delivering. If he'd done what was hoped for, his on-the-job compensation would have been higher. And the stockholders would have been pleased.

Anyway, the company cannot stiff him now. He tried. He failed to hit the ball out of the park. But, he had a deal and the company has to honor it. Perhaps some shareholders will file a lawsuit, but it's doubtful there's any way to get the money back.

But what difference does it make to you? In what way does the payout to the Home Depot ex-chief affect you? The money -- and it's not all cash -- isn't coming out of your pocket. And it's not as though Nardelli avoids paying income taxes on all that compensation.

[Ron Davison]

Barbara,

I just discovered your blog and love the way you think. Great list!

[sylvain]

Dear Barbara,

I'm swiss (the french part) and I have found you book Nickel and Dimed by chance. I read it and loved it. I do like the way you are thinking. I am not american but even in Switzerland we've got jobs with very low wages. The reading of your book has inspired me

[Barbara E]

Thanks, Sylvain.

And Chris: You think government is overreaching when it sets a minimum wages, but not when it kicks down doors and confiscates property in the name of the war on drugs? Hmm.

[Anarcissie]

I think in the case of the Drug War that it is not a matter of asking whether the drugs in question are good or bad, but whether they are worse than the Drug War. There is not much doubt that the Drug War has been a massive crime against humanity; millions of harmless people have been deprived of their freedom and sometimes their lives in the name of superstition and sadism. (And often racism as well.) It's not just the waste of money -- it's the damage done by the Drug Warriors with it.

[Anarcissie]

chris: 'But what difference does it make to you? In what way does the payout to the Home Depot ex-chief affect you? The money -- and it's not all cash -- isn't coming out of your pocket.'

It's coming from somewhere. Although I don't know for sure, my guess is that it's coming either from Home Depot's kitty or their stockholders. In that case, Home Depot will suffer and become less competitive, and that in turn will bring the whole industry down a bit. So I would say the $210 million is coming out of everyone's pocket. But once again, we're all agreeing to it. In 2007, that's how we do business -- we give huge, unimaginable sums of money to people who are good at playing corporate politics. Of course, Nardelli could invest the money back in Home Depot, or somewhere. In which case it's all just going around in a circle.

I think there is some question as to whether a sum like $210 million is meaningful to a person. It seems to exist in a different realm than most of us. For instance, it translates to several million hours of labor. You could buy several lifetimes of a working person's labor. What would you do with them?

[chris]

Barbara writes:

"And Chris: You think government is overreaching when it sets a minimum wages, but not when it kicks down doors and confiscates property in the name of the war on drugs? Hmm."

I never said the government is "overreaching" when it sets minimum wages. I said the unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage will outweigh the benefits, if there are any.

Meanwhile, there's little to connect government debates about minimum wage laws and law enforcement tactics to catch perpetrators.

While I would decriminalize most drug use, doing so would create a few new problems while righting a few wrongs. We know a little about group behavior and alcohol. Not everyone is a raging alcoholic. But there are a lot of drinkers in the US. Would drug use reach as far into society as alcohol has? Probably. Would that prove bad? Hard to say.

Meanwhile, the reticence of politicians on the issue of decriminalizing drugs makes it pretty clear they think the outcome of supporting such legislation is too close to call. None are ready to sacrifice their careers on such an uncertain move.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"It's coming from somewhere. Although I don't know for sure, my guess is that it's coming either from Home Depot's kitty or their stockholders."

Of course it's coming from Home Depot. Every nickel HD spends comes from either Operations, Financing or Investing. That's how it goes with all corporations. And management made the decision to grant Nardelli a generours severance agreement WHEN HE WAS HIRED.

He was a big wheel at GE before he arrived at HD. Wall Street was well aware that a guy like Nardelli does not move from GE to HD without a huge severance deal.

Meanwhile profits rose 150% at HD while Nardelli was in charge. Is that bad? Hardly. But the stock is slightly lower today than when he arrived -- because investors expected MORE than a 150% gain.

YOu wrote:
"In that case, Home Depot will suffer and become less competitive, and that in turn will bring the whole industry down a bit."

Not a chance. It's a competitive world out there. If HD's strategy isn't working quite right, then Lowe's will charge ahead.

Your comment suggests you believe there are people who know exactly what to do to make all the money in the world.

You wrote:
"So I would say the $210 million is coming out of everyone's pocket."

Hardly. Nothing is coming out of your pocket, even if you are a customer of HD. In fact, HD might conclude the best way to improve business is to hold a huge sale and slash prices on its entire inventory.

YOu wrote:
"But once again, we're all agreeing to it."

YOu have nothing to say about HD's severance policies. And neither should anyone except the owners of the company -- the shareholders. The company belongs to them, but their interests are served by management. But sometimes things don't go as well as hoped. That's hardly a tragedy.

You wrote:
"In 2007, that's how we do business -- we give huge, unimaginable sums of money to people who are good at playing corporate politics."

Utter nonsense. Corporate leaders earn big pay for the same reason pro athletes earn it -- they have a track record of huge successes.

Nardelli was hired because he proved himself at GE. He didn't bluff his way to the top.

YOu wrote:
"Of course, Nardelli could invest the money back in Home Depot, or somewhere. In which case it's all just going around in a circle."

There is only one circumstance in which Nardelli's compensation would not be re-invested in the economy: If he stuffed cash in his mattress.

Whether you have money in the bank or own stocks, your money is at work, put there by others who aim to maximize it.

If you deposit one dollar in the bank it is multiplied into about $10 by the mechanics of our banking system.

YOu wrote:

"I think there is some question as to whether a sum like $210 million is meaningful to a person."

Irrelevant. Bill Gates has $50 billion. He has already pledged to give most of it away through his charitable trust. It's his. He can do whatever he wants with it.

YOu wrote:
"It seems to exist in a different realm than most of us."

Irrelevant.

You wrote:
"For instance, it translates to several million hours of labor. You could buy several lifetimes of a working person's labor."

And when he buys cars, houses, dinners, vacations, planes, boats, clothes, etc, he's doing exactly that.

YOu asked:
"What would you do with them?"

Do with what?

[Philip]

3 million undocumented workers in the US before NAFTA, 12 million undocumented workers today. Mexican workers are even less able to compete with agribusiness than farmers in Kansas. Right on, Barbara!

[GreggB]

Sorry Chris, but there's a few things you're overlooking.

One big thing is that you completely neglect the corrosive effect on society as a whole by rewarding people with ridiculous amounts of cash, win or lose. My point is that HE LOST. He DID NOT do a good job for HD, so why is he being compensated so lavishly? Example: If I hired a plumber to fix a leaky pipe in my house, should I expect to pay him a great wage if he does a crummy job on my house, but did a great job on his previous customer's house? That's just plain dumb.

I accuse the boards of companies that don't put stiff performance controls into these contracts that have strong financial penalties for CEO's that DON'T perform as promised as being guilty of malfeasance and criminal carelessness with the stockholder's money. These CEO's claim to like risk...let them risk their paychecks like the rest of us do in today's economy. How much better will these CEO's perform if THEIR ASSets are on the line, not just their employees and the company's?

You wrote: "And when he buys cars, houses, dinners, vacations, planes, boats, clothes, etc, he's doing exactly that."

That kind of money could have gone to stockholders as dividend checks, into HD to help grow and strengthen the company, or (here's a scary thought) maybe raising their general employee's wages a little. Instead, it will go into his bank account. Just how many G-V business jets, Aspen houses, and ski trips does this guy need anyway?

Most of these clowns 'reinvest' it all right...in offshore tax havens and in building factories in third-world hellholes that as H.Ross Perot put it, "make a giant sucking sound of American's jobs going overseas."

As far as I'm concerned, if an American businessman is exporting American jobs like that, it is economic treason against the US. The Chinese are laughing their asses off at people like you. What will happen when the Chinese start using our debt against us? (There are signs that it's already starting.)

The fact that he can give some away, a la Gates, is no excuse for him essentially looting the company with the board's permission. The board is supposed to look out for the stockholder's best interest, not help CEO's carry the loot.

It is past time that stockholders rise up and start telling boards in no uncertain terms that this type of BS MUST end. These CEO's are mostly good at blowing their own horns about how great they are (Trump, anyone?) and how rich they are.

Just another version of Social Darwinism, where the few get the lion's share and the rest get screwed. Of this, revolutions are made.

[Kelley Bell]

How about Universal Health Care?

The World Health Organization ranks The United States 67th in quality of health services among other countries of the world.

I made two trips to the ER over the holiday, and spent four hours waiting the first time (before I walked out in discust) and spent twelve hours on the second trip.

I asked the nurse if this was normal, and she said "Only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."

If this country has a real emergency, (like the ones or leaders tell us they have disaster plans for,) I am quite sure the people will be SOL.

[paradox]

I finally lived a dream and rode my own Trek carbon frame this year. I blazed on streets, drivers holding out three fingers, four fingers as I kept up. It was stupid but the bike hums with inherent gyro-like spinning power underneath you at forty, I'll never forget it.

I got wiped out and my frame snapped by a bimbo who never saw me. I could ride again, I'm not scared, but I walked away that time. I dunno how much I've got in my karma account, you know what I'm sayin'.

I'm running and lifting now, and yes, I like the rowing machine at the gym. We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the blog. Always liked the picture.

[paradox]

That bike cost $3,600, that was the dream part. I hate this California crassness over throwing prices around, that's not what I'm doing.

[realpc]

You can't ever assume that drivers will see you, unfortunately. They see other cars, not pedestrians or bikes. That's because the ratio of drivers to non-drivers is about ten thousand to one, or so.

Bicyclists are not respected since they are considered too poor to buy a car, and therefore of no value to society. I have a car. I feel I should wear a sign saying "Do not run me over, I have a car and I am not worthless."

So we are a very small minority, especially in the winter. What sane worthwhile person rides a bike in the winter? Drivers do not see us or acknowledge our existence.

So do not expect drivers to obey any laws regarding bicyclists. Some drivers try to be polite but it's just annoying and dangerous, never helpful.

The only way to deal with this is to be utterly paranoid and constantly watch for cars from every direction. Stop at intersections even if you have the right of way.

We have a right turn on red light law here which makes it almost impossible for bicyclists or pedestrians to cross at intersections. Jay-walking is actually the only way to get across the street.

Bicyclists should be seen as heroes who help society by using less oil and causing less pollution. We help society while staying healthy.

[Anarcissie]

chris: 'YOu have nothing to say about HD's severance policies. And neither should anyone except the owners of the company -- the shareholders.'

You're wrong about that. If I don't like the way a company is managed, I can often avoid doing business with them. If a lot of people do that, it's called a boycott. Boycotts can be pretty effective. A really energized population can start cooperatives to compete with businesses they don't like.

In the case of Home Depot, though, I have taken notice of the fact that they seem to go out of their way to hire and train minority workers. I am sorry to see them losing 210 million dollars on account of this Nardelli, however wonderful he may be, because that 210 million might have bought stuff for those workers to sell, opened new stores, or raised wages. It seems to me the Home Depot board of directors has been pretty remiss in this case; Nardelli's parachute could have been just a bit more thinly gilded.