Month: May 2017

In the last day or so I noticed a number of seemingly unrelated headlines – that in fact may be of consequence in the day-to-day lives of African Americans who are living in the poorer neighborhoods.
1. “New Solutions Demanded for San Diego Police Shortage”
2. “Race Was a Factor, Survivors Say”
3. “Two Chicago Policemen Ambushed on South Side”

First of all, the city of San Diego is experiencing a significant shortage of police despite a recent increase in compensation and a stepped up recruiting effort. Vacancies on the police force have increased from 170 (10/2016) to 207 (5/2017), while applications have decreased 36% over the last 2 years. This is all in addition to the fact that about 1/3 of those now on the force are eligible to retire in the next 5 years.

On 4/30/2016 a deranged gunman shot up a pool party at an apartment complex in a somewhat upscale San Diego neighborhood. The gunman was white and 6 of the 7 who were shot were Black or Hispanic. On the day after the shooting, Police Chief Shelly Zimmerman said that there was “zero evidence that the crime was racially motivated”. In addition SDPD Captain Ahern commented that the investigation is likely to take several weeks.
Of course it did not take long for a number of black community leaders, including Shane Harris, the president of the San Diego Action Network (a civil rights organization), to question how Chief Zimmerman could have said such a thing.
Why not compliment the San Diego Police for their rapid response that undoubtedly saved many more African-Americans from getting wounded and perhaps killed? Why not commend the officers who risked their lives while being shot at by the crazed gunman?
My initial response to the “it must be racial” crowd is “at this point what difference does it make!”
Even though this despicable senseless act is a tragedy, whether or not it was racially motivated becomes somewhat of a moot point as the distraught gunman, who acted alone, is dead (killed by the police). What is the point of coming out against Chief Zimmerman – almost accusing her of trying to cover up something – within 24 hours of the crime.
To me, the only reasonable reason why Mr. Harris would verbally attack Chief Zimmerman at this stage is to make himself look good! To Mr. Harris I ask, “do you think that your self-serving comments will improve the lives of African-Americans in the poorer crime ridden neighborhoods?”

Meanwhile two undercover Chicago policemen were ambushed while sitting in a car on the south side of Chicago – which for all intents and purposes is a solidly black area. Why were they there? They were there because this is the area of the city where most of the record number of Chicago murders are occurring. They were there basically to try to make this neighborhood a little safer for the African-Americans that unfortunately have to live there.

At this time the national trend appears to be similar to that in San Diego in that less young people are signing on to be policemen/women. This trend seems to be fueled by greater scrutiny of police work as well as negative media stories about the police.

Does Shane Harris realize is that the good people in the poor black communities need the police? They do not want decreased police response times which will inevitably occur if the police department is not fully staffed. They hope that there will always be enough police to continue proactive policing. If the police force cannot meet its staffing requirements, it is the poorer neighborhoods that will suffer the most.
In my opinion, comments coming from the likes of Shane Harris can potentially dissuade future law-enforcement recruits from signing on, and thus can only further decrease police presence in the poorer black neighborhoods.
I can forgive a “Clueless George” if he does not comprehend the long term consequences of what he is doing, but I suspect that Mr. Harris is fully aware of what he is doing.

Youth (16-24 years old) unemployment is a big problem in most of the world today, as it is in the US and also in the state of California. This is a societal problem for all of us as unemployed youth are more likely to get into trouble, more likely to get trapped in the in the vortex of accelerating drug abuse, and more likely to break the law and thus be incarcerated. However, it is also a tragedy for these young unemployed individuals, now being referred to as “the lost generation”, because once they fall on the wrong side of the employment curve (unemployed for up to years at a time), it can take 20 years for their earnings to catch up and thus affect their life-long earnings.

Obviously this is a multi-factorial problem with no simple solution. However when it comes to some obvious solutions, why are the Democrats seemingly trying to make it more difficult for these unfortunate individuals to get themselves off the mat and into the fight? One of the main Democratic missteps resulting in the aggravation and prolongation of this problem is their backing of a higher and increasing minimum wage. Nothing hurts these young potential job seekers more than a higher minimum wage.

Why would a business owner hire someone with no experience, while being forced to pay that individual as if he/she had some work experience?  A sandwich shop owner, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, when asked about youth unemployment, said, “often they lack the ‘fundamental stuff’ – arriving on time, ironing their shirts, communicating well, and taking direction” . . . “We are going to end up with a whole group of people in their 40’s and 50’s who can’t function.” Business owners cannot afford to teach these basics workplace skills at an increasing minimum wage.

As studies of this problem have shown, the poorer youths of this “lost generation” seem to be affected the most, so while the Democrats try to sell themselves as the protectors of the less fortunate, they are, in fact, harming the poorer less fortunate, the most!

Parenthetically, many, many years ago when I was in high school, I had a job every summer. During my first two ventures into the job market, I was paid less than $1.00 per hour! Now obviously my wages at that time cannot compare to wages today (inflation, etc.), but I was lucky to be able to “get into the market” and learn some work related skills, mainly because I was “cheap labor”. This was good for the employer and better for me.

Unfortunately the youth of today are not so lucky.

As I am writing this, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has just put forth President Trump’s first edition of his new tax plan. In response I have seen a snapshot of Chuck Schumer standing at a podium with his mouth open (as usual), and his arms outstretched like the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, but I have not yet heard the caterwauling from the usual cast of Democratic characters. ( I now really like the word, “caterwauling” because I can now spell it and it oftentimes perfectly describes the Democratic whining.)

Here in California I think that I can predict the lyrics of the song that the California “Queens-ton Trio” (Pelosi, Feinstein, & Waters) will sing:

“This new plan will make the rich richer. ”

The middle class will be the losers.”

“This plan will make the poor poorer!”

However, when one looks at the itemized deductions that will disappear it seems pretty apparent that the higher earners will be the big losers. They obviously pay more state income tax because they earn more, and this deduction . . . abracadabra . . . gone. The more affluent also pay higher property taxes since they own more expensive houses. The previously deductible property tax deduction . . . abracadabra . . . gone.

The portion of middle class that does not itemize will benefit, because, in essence, if they do not itemize, it means that they do not have any significant deductions, and thus they have little in the way of deductions to lose. That portion of the middle class that itemizes could potentially be losers as they will lose their property tax deduction and their state income tax deduction. However in some instances this potential loss may be balanced out by the end of the alternate minimum tax.

On the other hand, the poor that pay taxes will be the most significant benefactors in this new plan. The standard deduction for families and for individuals will be doubled and this obviously benefits those who do not itemize and thus encompasses most of the poor.

Now here is the hooker for the Democrats. As only about 30% of households use itemized deductions, the present benefit from these deductions are concentrated in the high income-high taxed states. The states that will potentially be the biggest losers are those states with the highest state income taxes, such as New York, New Jersey, and of course California.

These are all Democratic states.

So the Democrats have a choice to make. Will they go along with a plan that will benefit the poor and middle class the most, or will they revert to partisan politics in order to benefit their “nanny states”?  If past actions are any indicator, I would bet that the Democrats will come out in force against this plan, as they always seem to choose the option that hurts the poor!