“The U.S. is in the grips of an inequality emergency,” according to the most recent report issued by OXFAM, a global confederation of more than 20 independent non-governmental organizations.

And our inequality-affordability situation will only grow worse unless voters apply political pressure in four areas, the report says.

Founded in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, the charity says it works in more than 70 countries to fight inequality and end poverty. It provides lifesaving disaster response, long-term development programs, and campaigns for economic and climate justice.

It’s latest report is titled “UNEQUAL: The rise of a new American oligarchy and the change we need.”

That report, plus statistics noted by the Economic Policy Institute, indicate a continuing downward affordability future for most U.S. families and young folks.

And it observes that actions by President Donald J. Trump are making the inequality-affordability situation grow worse. 

Meanwhile, many workers are thoroughly disgusted and angry as the gap between productivity and pay grows wider. And they have noticed the years of substantial increases in pay and compensation that go to CEOs, board members and investors, while a pittance is passed on to the workers. 

The OXFAM report states the United States has become “more unequal than most other wealthy countries” as families struggle to get by. It adds that “homelessness is at record levels, while wealth and income inequality have risen drastically.”

And when compared to 10 other peer, industrialized countries, “the U.S. has the highest rate of relative poverty, the second highest rate of child poverty and infant mortality, and the second lowest life expectancy.”

Both OXFAM and the Economic Policy Institute emphasize the growing gap between productivity and workers’ pay that has occurred during the past 45 years.

During that period, our nation’s productivity has almost doubled with a 92.4% increase. That growth was nearly three times more than the 33.6% increase in pay since 1979. 

Meanwhile, younger people experienced a growing cash crunch in buying homes. In 1980, the median age for first-time home buyers was reported at 27 to 29. And now the median age is reported at mid-30s to 40, depending on the source. 

Also, since 1979 the Economic Policy Institute reported membership in worker unions has declined from 21 million to 14.7 million today. And to put that into perspective, that decline occurred while our U.S. population grew by more than 50% — from about 225 million to 345 million today.

The institute reported its research revealed roughly 50 million of today’s nonunion U.S. workers say they would join a union if given the opportunity. And the institute estimates that tripling the current union membership would shift approximately $1.2 trillion to workers annually — substantially raising median wages.

The institute also explains the decline in union membership is connected to corporate union-busting plus legal hurdles such as right-to-work laws in 26 states that prevent workers from organizing.

OXFAM’s report cites growing gender and racial pay gaps along with continued racial and ethnic discrimination. The report particularly notes that women of color have fared worse than any other demographic groups in recent decades. 

What is so disgusting about the five decades of inequality are OXFAM’s remarks that the inequality-affordability problems are the result of deliberate corporate and political actions. 

The report says: “The state of the current economy was created this way on purpose.  It’s a result of political choices that have favored the wealthy and powerful over working families.”

It specifically cites both a “weakening of the social safety net and tilting the tax code toward the wealthiest,” which has “caused hardship for too many.”

And OXFAM says the Trump Administration is making all of it even worse.  

As a result of his so-called tax reforms, supported by Republicans in Congress, “the highest earning 0.1% will see their taxes fall by an estimated $311,000 in 2027, while the lowest-income households — people making less than $15,000 — will pay tax increases.”

And as part of the Trump team’s prioritizing profits over people, other actions include “deregulating corporate polluters, privatizing public services, and attacking basic civil rights protections.”

To reverse our dire situation, OXFAM says action is needed in four areas.

First, workers and everyday Americans must “rebalance power” by actively participating in organizations that demand “fair treatment” and “solutions that meet their real needs.” 

Next: “Unrig the tax code” that allows billionaires to pay “a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses.” Voters must demand that Congress “raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, crack down on tax dodging, and close loopholes that let the rich hide their wealth.”

Third: “Reimagine the social safety net” beyond the patchwork that leaves many behind. “Let’s invest in high-quality, universal public services and programs like guaranteed income that reduce inequality and ensure no one is left to struggle alone.”

Fourth and finally: “Support workers’ rights.” That means “strengthen workers’ rights to form unions, … raise the minimum wage” and “eliminate exclusions from federal labor protections.”

So OXFAM is telling us: If we want change, we must be active. Through organizations and in person, we must demand our elective officials take the actions that we want if they expect to get our votes.

We can’t expect the situation to get any better if we fail to act.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald in Provo during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Can we reverse our inequality crisis? appeared first on Park Record.

I was talking with a local chiropractor recently about the differences between our U.S. healthcare system and the universal healthcare operating in Canada, where the costs of treatment are considerably less.

As you might have noticed in some of my previous commentaries, I am a strong advocate for a universal or single-payer healthcare system. I have noted repeatedly that the U.S. is the only one of the 38 developed nations in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have a universal healthcare system. 

In my chat with the chiropractor, it was noted that healthcare is much cheaper in Canada. Then he remarked that the one big drawback in the Canadian system is the months of wait time that’s often necessary when the treatment involves a specialist. 

I have heard that wait-time complaint several times before. And it is the main argument against implementing a universal system here in the United States.

But what is not explained is why that wait time occurs in Canada. A main reason is the shortage of specialists in Canada — because they tend to migrate south to the United States, where they can charge much more for their services. 

Here in the United States, medical specialists from other countries can accumulate much more wealth. Here they can become a part of our capitalism-based network that allows physicians, drug makers and insurance companies to bilk our residents with higher-than-necessary fees and prices. 

It’s a system that super-charges our inequality network as more middle-class families are forced downward toward the poverty line — as a result of healthcare expenses — while those who benefit most from the higher fees and prices become more rich.

That includes our Congress members who receive huge campaign contributions through political action committees. Of course, many of those large contributions are arranged by the lobbyists representing those who benefit the most by maintaining our capitalism-driven healthcare.

So we must ask ourselves what can be done to change the system. 

The answer is forcing Congress to act on two issues: 

First, we must tell each of our Congress representatives — or any candidates who seek their seats — that they must commit to enacting a universal healthcare plan if they want our votes. 

Second, again, we must tell each Congress member and candidate that we will not vote for them unless they support legislation to end dark money contributions. That means they must vote for a bill that requires transparency — by publication in periodicals — of all political gifts and donations with a value of $100 or more. 

Unless we act to force those changes, our healthcare will remain much more expensive than the universal systems operating in the other developed countries.

No to partnership

Why does the partnership of Medicare with Medi-Cal cause some offices to refuse to see a customer?

For example, a local dermatologist who accepted my Medicare insurance a couple years ago this year refused to see me because I now have a Medicare-Medi-Cal partnership coverage.

Instead, we were forced to drive a half-hour away to see a dermatologist.

I asked our county social services office about that problem, but I suspect that office is evading what workers there know to be the answer. I was told I would need to ask each individual office why they refused to see someone with the partnership coverage. 

I suspect a main reason is because the doctors’ offices are inundated with a considerable amount of additional time-consuming paperwork. There may be one or more other reasons.

And then another partnership problem occurred. When another healthcare office agreed to accept the partnership coverage, why was I told that my out-of-pocket co-pay could be higher because of the partnership?

That created my suspicion that Medi-Cal is expecting me to cough up an additional co-pay for its services. 

I may be off-base with my assumptions, but either way there is something basically wrong with the partnership when such problems are cited by the offices I contacted recently.

But I could not get any straight answers — from neither the county social services office nor from my call to the partnership office with the 1-800 number I was given via a recorded response. 

And that raises a disgusting side issue — the enormous amount of hours we citizens must waste in our efforts to negotiate numerous recorded responses when we need to talk to a person about our questions. I had a 51-minute wait to talk to the woman who told me to ask the doctor why a return visit was rejected because of the partnership coverage. 

I suspect too many companies have not yet realized how the difficulty of talking to a real person in their office can result in sending customers to a competitor who makes contacts easier. 

Public service offices paid for by our taxes appear to be among the worst time-wasters as a result of their many recorded responses. And sometimes a series of recorded choices simply causes more confusion.

Finally, I determined that Medi-Cal is providing me with services I no longer need since I am now recuperating at home after spending months in a skilled nursing facility. Those confinements were needed as a result of a traffic accident a year ago, and then my recent new hip implant. 

So I canceled Med-Cal after I was advised there is no penalty if I have a need to re-apply sometime in the future.

Again, it’s another case of time-consuming hoops that we must wade through before we can get some reasonable answers from a real person.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com

The post Let’s make healthcare work for everyone appeared first on Park Record.

Did you notice the mail service warning last month that the U.S. Postal Service will run out of money by February, unless Congress expands its borrowing authority by billions of dollars?

The Postal Service cited a net quarterly loss of $2 billion as it faces a growing financial crisis after mail volumes fell another 6.3% in the three months ending March 31 — just as operating revenue rose 2.3% to $20.2 billion over the same quarter last year. 

So the Postal Service said it would temporarily ​suspend payments to a federal pension program, and raise first-class mail stamps to 82 cents ​from 78 cents, effective July 12.

The Postal Service cited soaring net losses of $120 billion since ​2007 — as first-class mail, its most profitable product, fell to its lowest volume since the late 1960s.

“We are in a cash crisis,” Postmaster General David Steiner said. “To avoid disruption ​and to sustain our role supporting American commerce and the public, we require urgent congressional action ‌to ⁠expand our borrowing authority and to address outdated constraints on the organization.”

Last month, the Postal Service won approval from the Postal Regulatory Commission ​for a temporary 8% ​price hike for ⁠priority mail and package deliveries to deal with rising transportation and fuel costs. The Postal Service plans for the surcharge to be in ​effect through January 17, 2027.

The Trump administration proposals to resolve Postal Service deficits focus on privatization, structural service cuts, reducing workforce and collective bargaining rights.

Privatization won’t work. I’ll address its issues last.

Meanwhile, let us remember that postal service is a social service — just as the building of roads and streets, and providing police and fire protection. They are services provided by our taxes, and they are not expected to pay for themselves. Nor are they expected to lose money in such amounts as billions of dollars.

So it should be obvious that a combination of higher postal rates and service reductions are necessary.

Service reductions suggested by the Republican Party include ending or reducing Saturday mail delivery, closing little used rural post offices, and canceling late-afternoon mail pickups to lower transportation and overtime costs.

Of course, service reductions will hit rural areas the hardest — areas where the service is relied upon the most — and so necessary because of other services lacking in rural areas. Among groups affected the most are indigenous peoples on tribal lands.

Many rural folks get their meds by mail. And many remote areas do not have reliable telephone and internet service. So the reliability of mail service is most important to them.

And they must plan ahead in ordering meds if they expect to receive them when needed. So they likely will need to plan ahead a day or two earlier. 

And I agree that reliability is most important, but is that reliability needed daily?

I believe both urban residential and all rural deliveries can and should be cut to three days per week. It could be Monday, Wednesday, Friday for some areas; or Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday for others. That could keep rates within reach for rural customers.

I have talked to many folks who admittedly don’t check their mail daily unless they’re expecting something other than the usual advertisements. 

Residential customers need to take this attitude: “We can live without daily service, but we must have the reliability of service three days weekly.”

And if businesses want six-days service, then their rates need to be adjusted to reflect the costs of that service. 

Reducing most delivery services to three days weekly will lower operational costs considerably, including reductions in workforce needs and transportation costs.

Of course, considerable planning for such a transition would be needed.

Now, about privatization. 

No business man, or woman or group considers starting a business unless there are profits to be made. So let’s consider a few aspects of business operations that government critics ignore. Businesses, whether small or large, have various expenses that governments don’t have. 

Number one: Governments do not need to operate at a profit. They do not need to pay high salaries or bonuses. Nor do they need to pay stockholder dividends and members of a board of directors.

Number two: Governments do not need to pay income taxes.

Number three: Governments do not need to spend substantial chunks of money on advertising and marketing, or commissions to sales agents. Think about the billions spent by insurance and drug companies as examples. 

Number four: Governments do not need to pay lobbyists.  

Number five: Governments do not need to purchase liability or malpractice insurance. 

And number six: Governments can borrow money at cheaper rates than businesses. 

So how is it that businesses can absorb such additional expenses and provide equivalent services cheaper while making a profit?

Obviously, they can’t. 

So privatizing the Postal Service is not an option because no business would consider providing the service unless a profit can be made.

Nor would any consider taking over such a service without carte blanche approval to raise rates and reduce services enough to provide that profit. 

Then what kind of Postal Service would we have?

But reasonable reductions in service, with strong emphasis on reliability, can offer some workable solutions. 

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years.  He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ‘80s.  He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Mail cuts and rate hikes inevitable appeared first on Park Record.

I’m back in the saddle …

Writing saddle that is — after nearly a year in nursing care for pelvic surgeries and a hip infection. I hope all that is ended with my new hip implanted in late April and some learning to walk again.

With a return to research reading, one of the latest issues to catch my attention is an April 27 report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The report details the real source of continuing affordability problems, and explains it’s not just prices rising — because prices have always been rising some.

The institute states the real root of affordability is continuing rising inequality — deliberately caused by big money investors and corporate managers. 

In three key takeaways from its report, the institute explains:

1. “Income inequality has skyrocketed since 1979 because of intentional policy choices that suppressed wages for typical families — to accelerate income growth at the top.

2. “Middle-class household incomes would be roughly $30,000 higher today if their incomes had simply kept pace with average (national) income growth since 1979.

3. “Recognizing that today’s affordability problems are overwhelmingly inequality problems is the key to constructing the right policy solutions.”

Citing Congressional Budget Office data, the institute explains:

“For more than four decades, most of the income growth in the U.S. economy has been funneled to those at the very top, leaving typical families with far less than their proportionate share of the economy’s gains.”

And it has “resulted from an intentional policy campaign of wage suppression,” the institute added.

The institute further explains: “Labor markets in capitalist economies are inherently tilted toward employers. Fair play and broadly shared prosperity only materialize when policy affirmatively aims to correct this imbalance.”

Policy choices were different prior to the 1980s. The institute notes they “bolstered workers’ leverage and bargaining power” to keep labor markets growth “fast and equal for decades” after World War II. 

But lawmakers rolled back those policies “at the behest of capital owners and corporate managers.”

And just in case you haven’t made the connection yet, I must draw your attention to the failed “trickle-down economy” policies initiated during the 1980s era of President Ronald Reagan.

As a result, between 1979 and 2022, market income for the 1% of our economy jumped a whopping 277% — “from $784,573 to $2.958 million.” 

Compare that to “just 26% growth for the middle fifth of households,” where growth went from $76,359 to $96,335.

The institute also identifies some policy changes that are needed to raise the equality quotient for U.S. households. 

To start, it advises protecting workers’ right to organize unions — while fostering long periods of low unemployment.

That second part likely will be forced upon our U.S. workforce as a result of three continuing developments — our aging population, low birth rate, plus the deporting and turning away of immigrants.

Our native population already is declining as a result the falling birth rate — now at 1.6 children for child-bearing adult, compared to the replacement rate of 2.1. 

And we’re already experiencing huge worker shortages in various industries — especially in the building trades and healthcare industries.

The construction sector alone is short approximately 500,000 skilled workers. And as many as 1.4 million trade jobs across seven core categories — electricians, welders, mechanics, plumbers, HVAC technicians, carpenters, and construction — risk going unfilled by the end of this decade.

Meanwhile our U.S. healthcare system faces a severe workforce shortage driven by an aging population and high turnover. Projections indicate a national deficit of over 108,000 registered nurses and 245,000 licensed practical nurses, plus shortages in more than 30 physician specialties, leaving 140,000 roles unfilled.

All that is happening as our Immigration and Customs Enforcement is deporting 35,000 to 39,000 people per month.

In addition, more than 80,000 people abandoned their immigration cases and opted to voluntarily depart the U.S. between January 2025 and March of this year.

Finally, the institute cites the need for policies that will keep minimum wages high to help families claim their fair share of income growth.

EPI researchers estimate a single adult with no children requires at least $17 per hour (roughly $35,000 annually) to achieve a modest, adequate standard of living in any region of the U.S. — but considerably more than that in states like New York and California.

And yet our federal minimum wage remains unchanged at $7.25 since it was set at that rate in July 2009.

So it should be obvious that our inequality and affordability situations will continue to grow worse unless there are substantial attitude changes in many members of Congress.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans more than 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Affordability issues stem from deliberate policies appeared first on Park Record.

Is U.S. health care — or lack of it — violating human rights?

Some officials in other countries believe our nation is violating human rights with our inadequate and negligent health-care system.

When I asked my laptop “What do officials in foreign nations say about U.S. health care?” that was one of the responses I received. Here is the exact wording provided by an Artificial Intelligence overview:

“International bodies have raised concerns about the U.S. system in the context of international law and the right to health, stating the lack of universal access reflects a failure to comply with legal and political obligations to ensure the right to health for its citizens.”

Isn’t that a condemning comment on our lack of caring for all our citizens?

Another response cited the “perception of a ‘morally wrong’ system.” That response noted, “Some officials, such as former U.N. chief Ban Ki Moon, have stated the system is ‘morally wrong’ due to the lack of universal access.”

Foreign officials also list some reasons for those comments, including “high cost and inefficiency.”

Those criticisms are based on the analyses of two non-profit, non-partisan agencies that report “the U.S. spends significantly more per capita on health care than other wealthy nations, yet achieves worse outcomes.”

The two agencies are Commonwealth Fund and KFF, the former Kaiser Family Foundation. Both support health-care research and issue facts on health policies and policymakers.

Foreign officials cite inequities and lack of access, adding: “Unlike other high-income countries that provide universal coverage, the U.S. system leaves many without adequate access to care, and health outcomes are less equitable.”

But what I consider most condemning of all is the statement on our poor health results. It says: “Despite high spending, the U.S. ranks last among comparable nations for key outcomes, including life expectancy, infant mortality and chronic disease management, a gap that has widened since the COVID-19 pandemic.”

All of these criticisms are caused by our failure to enact a universal health-care system — or as some have labeled it — a single-payer system or Medicare for all. 

If any of this sounds familiar, perhaps you have been paying attention to Bernie Sanders, our independent senator from Vermont — and not only recently, but for the past 32 years.

One of his more recent stabs at a universal system is his “Medicare for All” legislation introduced in the Senate on Sept. 13, 2017. But Sanders has been advocating for single-payer health-care systems for decades, including a bill with a similar goal introduced in 1993 when he was a member of the House of Representatives. 

Some of you may have noticed that I also have advocated for universal health care in a number of commentaries during the past six or seven years. On a few occasions I noted the United States is the only one of the 38 developed nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have some form of universal health care.

Shame on us!

Healthcare bankruptcies

The results and damages caused by our inadequate health-care actions are not limited to poorer treatment for medical conditions. The National Institute of Health estimates more than a half-million Americans file for bankruptcy each year as a result of medical bills. 

In addition, the institute’s study reported medical issues were a contributing factor in two-thirds of personal bankruptcies.

Another study estimated medical-caused bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans each year, including their many children and elderly dependents.

Also, a joint 2022 investigation by KFF Health News and NPR found that more than 100 million people — 41% of our adults — were burdened with unpaid medical bills. And that burden was not limited to those who had little or no insurance. Many who file for bankruptcy or struggle with debt do have insurance, the joint analysis added.

Even worse is the conclusion that we can expect medical-caused bankruptcy numbers to climb higher with the Trump administration cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and The Affordable Care Act.

The numbers already reported are quite disgusting. And it should be apparent to everyone that the Trump regime has scheduled our health-care system to go from bad to worse.

But obviously, our woefully inadequate system must be attributed to a lack of caring in Congress. Trunp is just making it more dreadful. 

And just as obviously, I’m sure we can expect continued criticisms from abroad. 

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald in Provo during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Health care is a black eye for the U.S appeared first on Park Record.

What we see in President Donald Trump’s selection of Pam Bondi as attorney general is corruption of the Department of Justice at its epitome. He picked her to serve as his judicial “attack dog” — and she is attending to the job with fervor.  

I maintain that situation is an excellent example of why we should be electing our national attorney general, and that it should be scheduled during the mid-term elections — midway through the presidential term. 

I originally proposed electing the AG six years ago in a commentary published by The Union at Grass Valley, California, on May 11, 2019, after Attorney General William Barr acted to shield President Trump. Back then there was little response, and it was mostly negative. Perhaps this time it will draw a better reception from readers as a result of the Trump-Bondi corruption.

Under current procedure, it’s a political appointment — plain and simple. And the attorney general owes some allegiance to the president — serving at the president’s whim and pleasure because the president has the authority to remove the AG and pick a replacement. 

But after pondering the rest of this commentary, I hope to receive readers’ emails expressing their thoughts on electing the attorney general. 

In a May 2 article published by The Guardian, Peter Stone wrote that Trump’s Department of Justice under Bondi’s leadership “has taken radical steps to target his political foes, back a harsh agenda against undocumented immigrants, and help business allies.”

Stone cites ex-prosecutors who note “how Bondi and the department’s top lawyers have halted some major prosecutions, fired or forced out lawyers who didn’t meet MAGA litmus tests, and were instructed by Trump to investigate a key Democratic fundraising vehicle as examples of how Trump and Bondi have politicized the Justice Department.”

Stone quotes Paul Rosenzweig, former federal prosecutor, as saying, “Trump’s transmuting DOJ into his personal law firm is a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.”

Stone also quotes Mike Romano, who resigned from the Department of Justice in late March as a result of Bondi’s actions. Romano said, “Bondi has made clear — before becoming attorney general, and since — that she wants the Department of Justice to support President Trump unconditionally.”

Romano said the very night that Bondi was confirmed by the Senate, “she issued a memorandum to all Justice Department employees in which she threatened to fire employees who refuse to defend the Trump administration’s actions. …  She and her subordinates have made good on those threats by firing people and forcing them to resign.”

Barbara McQuade, a former prosecutor for Michigan’s Eastern District,who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, remarked that Bondi’s memo “weaponizes law enforcement and undermines public confidence in government.”

In my 2019 commentary, I reported that Kris Olsen, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Oregon, remarked that political actions by attorneys general are violations of the Hatch Act of 1939, enacted “to prohibit federal officials from using their positions for partisan purposes.”

The Office of Special Council, an independent agency within the executive branch, is responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act. Olsen added that occasional violations in the past often were ignored, or resulted in just a warning, “or a slap on the hand.”

I suppose we won’t be surprised, however, if Trump decides to close that agency, rather than simply ignoring it.

Trump and Bondi are providing strong reasons why the attorney general should be elected — to divorce that office, and concurrently the Department of Justice, from doing the president’s bidding.  

An elected AG would be directly responsible to the voters — potentially providing for transparency and accountability with the focus on the public’s interests rather than partisan agendas. The office would be perceived as less susceptible to political manipulation and thereby more independent and impartial.

That also indicates the AG might be more willing to investigate and prosecute cases even though they involved politically sensitive issues. 

And moving the attorney general’s election to the mid-terms would eliminate all the overriding attention given to the presidential election and its related political issues — allowing voters to focus more on AG candidates’ qualifications and experience.

Yes, the AG probably would be elected by a lower voter turnout compared to what the presidential elections draw. But then those voters likely will be more concerned and aware of attorney general and Department of Justice issues. An AG mid-term election might even draw a few more voters to the normally lower turnout.

For a bit of comparison, 43 states use the election process — but none during the governor’s mid-term. Only five allow the governor to appoint the AG. They are Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wyoming. In Maine, the state legislature picks the AG. And in Tennessee the position is filled by the state’s supreme court.

Also, 17 states elect their lieutenant governor — the second in command if the governor is incapacitated — meaning the governor and lieutenant governor could represent different parties.      

Overall, I see considerably more benefits than detriments by electing the AG — and especially at the mid-terms when selecting a president is not drawing most of the attention. 

In addition, the change does not require an amendment to the Constitution — only new legislation by Congress.

Olson recommended such legislation include a job description specifying that candidates should display “integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis and public administration.”

But again, I wish to receive readers’ views on the election proposal.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Reasons to elect the U.S. attorney general appeared first on Park Record.

This is an open letter to Republicans in Congress. Now is the time for you to act — to break your support for President Donald Trump. There will be no better time later.

The longer you wait, the more difficult your situation will become — especially if you’re planning to seek reelection next year.

More and more of your constituents are growing angry; and the longer you wait to buck Trump, the more angry they will become.

Let’s enumerate just some of the long list that is causing your constituents’ anger.

Near the top of that list — particularly for upper- and middle-income voters — are the losses in their savings and buying power because their stocks and bonds have lost value. Trump’s tariffs have produced the unforgivable political sin of tampering with the value of their money.

The longer you wait, the more you — and they — stand to lose as the U.S. dollar already has lost nearly 12% of its worldwide value. That is up from 10% only a couple weeks ago.

Your constituents also are concerned about inflation and price increases as Trump’s chaos continues with his on-again, off-again tariffs instability. And they already are receiving warnings of product shortages and empty shelves — even for Christmas gifts more than six months from now.

But I’m only just beginning to note a few of the long list of grievances growing in your constituents.

Many parents are quite unhappy over cuts to head start and school lunch programs, and the repealing of grants to local healthcare agencies.

At least a dozen of you and your Republican colleagues in Congress already have reported opposition to a federal budget that slashes Medicaid services. Not only will families in your districts suffer, but representatives of clinics, hospitals and doctors’ offices have complained to you that they will lose substantial income from the loss of providing Medicaid services.

Others are disgusted with the federal cuts to science programs and research at our universities. They want to know they can count on those services to protect us from the threats of new viruses while research continues with efforts to conquer old diseases like cancer.

And anger is building in retirees over reductions in Social Security and Medicare services.

Outrage and disgust evolved over Trump’s shift toward favoring Russia in the war with Ukraine, plus his indications that he might lead the U.S. to renege on the NATO mutual support pledge.

In addition, you have seen how our Defense Department leaders bungled what should have been a secured communication of classified secrets. And now our allies are questioning whether the U.S. can be trusted with intelligence secrets.

It would be laughable except that most voters take our national security quite seriously.

Meanwhile, small businesses that rely on sales of imported products and tourism may be forced to close. The numbers of visitors from Canada and overseas have been declining precipitously.

Have you given any thought to how the operators of closed businesses, the employees who lost their jobs, and their family members might vote next year?

Voters’ distress over current leadership becomes quite evident as we see Trump’s approval ratings plummet on issue after issue — to low 40s and even only high 30s on some issues. So you are dreaming if you expect to see any appreciable improvement by November of next year.

If you are among the Republicans expecting these issues to blow away by then, you need to change what you are vaping, or stop. With Trump, the number of new turmoils and the magnitude of the old ones will continue to grow rather than shrink.

In November of next year, voters will not only be balloting on every Republican in the House of Representatives, but 20 senatorial seats now held by Republicans also will be on the ballots. And voters have long memories when you mess with their wallets, their health, and the future of their families.

With the mounting disappointment and anger that has been building in your districts and states, it boggles my mind how you can even consider continuing to support Trump.

Yes, I am well aware of the threats some of you have received from a few fanatical zealots or mentally sick ones who support Trump. But the longer you delay a break from Trump, the bolder they will become until they puff themselves into actually doing harm.

So the sooner you break, the better.

Perhaps it might even be a good idea for readers to send copies of this open letter to their Republican friends in swing states and other purple districts — especially if any are working for Congress members.

Again, there will be no better time to make the break. Hopes for improvement in the White House can be expected to fizzle as the turbulence continues.

Our democracy needs thoughtful Republican leaders, not a collection of mostly grovelers.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Republicans in Congress, break from Trump while you can appeared first on Park Record.

Are we losing our democracy? Perhaps we are — unless …

And it’s that unless that I want to emphasize. 

I understand why President Donald Trump won his narrow margin in last November’s election. I understand why many disgusted folks voted for him. They said prices are too high and that government is not being responsive to their needs. And they were afraid the situation is getting worse.

Many can’t afford homes the way their parents could. And they see that the rich are the ones in charge. Some have even learned that just three Americans own more wealth than the entire bottom half of our society. And we have nearly 800,000 homeless in our nation.

So many folks voted for change — including disgusted young men whose votes went 56% for Donald Trump.

They wanted to believe his false claims and lies. He told them he would make their lives better by bringing down prices and sweeping the waste out of our federal government.

So now I suspect we are in danger of losing our democracy — unless and until Republicans in Congress realize they are the ones who have brought us to our current situation. I place the blame for our situation in their laps.  

I continue to believe, however, that the majority of our Republicans in Congress are honorable folks who want the best for our nation. And I understand they feel squeezed between wanting to provide loyalty to their party and Trump — in contrast with their personal values and principles that lean in a different direction. 

And some have been threatened by staunch Trump supporters who lean toward violence. 

But those honorable Republican members of Congress know that Trump frequently lies and that many of his claims were false. Yet they have continued to support him because they want to keep their cushy Washington jobs. 

Now, however, they need to decide. Do they want to keep our democracy, or do they want to lose it?

That decision rests entirely on the actions of Republicans in Congress. 

• They know that not supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia is wrong.
• They know that Russia was the aggressor in starting the war, and that Donald Trump is going in the wrong direction in acting as a buddy to Putin.
• They know that a U.S. failure to remain a leader in NATO is a dangerous move.  
• They know that cuts in the Justice Department, FBI, CIA and Pentagon undermine our national security, and expose us to cyber attacks and other sabotage.
• They know that ending background checks for those given access to our classified secrets could mean a death sentence to some of our friends abroad.
• They know that the firing of many civil service workers was unjustified and has resulted in forcing our health, science and research agencies to cut services. 
• They know Trump does not have the right to end the USAID program or freeze its assets.
• They know that children and others are dying while lifesaving aid rots in warehouses.
• They know Trump’s tariffs will create soaring inflation. 
• They know that extending Trump’s tax cuts will cost millions of people their homes, health, jobs, food and so many services our citizens rely on.
• And finally, they are seeing how the Trump regime actions are causing a great nationwide harm to their constituents and veterans, their friends, neighbors, and even some of their family members.

But all it would take to bolster our democracy is a core group of well-respected Republican leaders to form a Save Our Democracy caucus that tells Trump he’s going in the wrong directions. 

The world is watching, and waiting to see if Republicans in Congress will finally act on their true values and principles.

Now is the time for them to show they have spines.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post The world is watching our GOP leaders appeared first on Park Record.

Voter interviews during our recent national election have drawn my attention to a staggering and accelerating decline in reading in America.

Instead of acting on facts presented by books and objective news publications, many voters are acting on emotions, opinions and misinformation as presented in social media. 

And what should concern us the most is the fact that the precipitous declines — in both reading and writing — is occurring in our youngest age groups. 

To justify those statements, let’s examine a series of facts and the conclusions of a report on reading by the National Endowment for the Arts — titled “Reading at Risk.” The report is based on a 2002 U.S. Census survey requested by the organization. 

But first, here are the facts:

More than 1,000 bookstores closed in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007, and hundreds more have closed since then. The number of independent bookstores in the U.S. dropped from 2,400 in 2002 to 1,900 in 2011.

In just the past five years alone, magazine sales have declined significantly. In 2023 consumers spent 76% less on magazines than in 2019, and subscriptions dropped by 56%.

The drop in newspaper readership has received a bit more attention as the number of daily newspapers has declined by nearly one-fourth — from 1,748 in 1970 to only 1,279 in 2018.

But those figures don’t tell the whole story because many of those newspapers now publish one or two days a week less than what they had in the past. And their total number of pages also has dropped. 

In addition, it’s pertinent to note that those huge readership declines occurred during the same period that our population increased by more than one-third — from 203 million in 1970 to more than 330 million today. 

And even more significant are several conclusions in the “Reading at Risk” report from the Endowment for the Arts. They include:

• Less than half of the adult American population now reads literature. 
• The rate of decline is accelerating.
• The steepest decline is in the youngest age groups.
• The decline in literary reading foreshadows an erosion in cultural and civic participation.

Researchers and experts also have determined that dwindling readership has contributed to less writing and poorer writing skills, which reveal corresponding declines in vocabulary, grammar and critical thinking development. 

That last category — critical thinking — is what concerns me the most. Reading encourages the critical thinking that is considered essential for crafting well-structured and insightful written arguments. 

Of course, it is not enough to report these sad results without questioning why. What are the causes? 

In everything I’m reading, three causes are indicated repeatedly — distraction prompted by television, video games and social media. Some sources also indicate changes in our educational system. But I suspect the greater problem may be the failure of parents to guide and control how our children spend their time. 

On behalf of parents, however, it must be noted that today’s prices and wages often prompt both parents to work, providing less guidance to their children. And it’s extremely difficult for single parents. In contrast, most folks my age were raised in a two-parent home with a single breadwinner. 

So with the current social media problems we face in developed countries, I applaud Australia for its utter boldness in enacting a law that effectively bans access to social media for anyone under the age of 16. And companies face penalties of as much as 60 million Australian dollars for failure to enforce that age limit.

The goal is to protect young people from potential harm associated with excessive social media use, such as cyberbullying and mental health issues. Social media frequently has been cited as a cause of juvenile suicides. 

Australia’s law is appropriate simply because most juveniles and teenagers have not yet matured enough to deal with the various effects of social media. 

I liken it to the age limits for driving, and the age limits for voting and alcohol purchase. Most young people under those age limits simply aren’t mature enough to handle the related responsibilities. 

The age for obtaining a driver’s license in most states is 16 — but 18 in Europe. To purchase alcohol, it’s 21 in most states. Even the age for voting was 21 for much of our history. It was not lowered to 18 until after it was argued that 18-year-olds can be drafted into our armed services. 

Age limits are not new when maturity and responsibilities are involved. So I see no overriding reasons why we shouldn’t be setting an age limit for use of social media as well.  

If we did, I suspect we might see some measurable increases in reading, writing and critical thinking — or at the very least, an end to the declines.

And surely we would have more reading and critical thinking as preparation for plenty of written arguments to eliminate the ban.

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post America’s slide toward ignorance appeared first on Park Record.

Yes, President Joe Biden put in a poor speaking performance in the presidential candidates debate last week. But I say he still won the debate.

He won the debate because he answered the questions. And his answers were appropriate with facts and other information that he presented. 

Meanwhile, Donald J. Trump provided lies, slander, misrepresentations and baseless opinions while rarely giving an appropriate answer to the question that was asked.

For me, the election-day choice will be simple: Which candidate would I prefer to trust with my life? That really is the question that all of us should ask when we are voting.

Because that really is what we actually are doing. We are putting our lives and our nation in the hands of the leadership presented by that person and his or her team of advisers. 

A year ago I wrote that the Democratic Party should have been looking to a younger candidate, and I presented a list of seven or eight good choices. Then last October, I cited the party’s national hierarchy for its failure to be more open to other candidates. Instead, I believe top party members let it be known that anyone challenging Biden would suffer serious retribution. 

I also wrote a commentary stating that an age limit should be enacted for presidential candidates because I believe we should be selecting candidates younger than both Biden and Trump. 

I had been wishing that Biden would bow out and give his support to someone younger. But he didn’t. And no one younger has stepped forward to become a serious contender.

Now, since Biden is the presumptive Democratic candidate, I’ll provide some minor bits of parallel between his position as president and mine as a columnist. 

First, there is the parallel of age. I am 82 and will turn 83 nearly three months before Biden turns 82.

Next, readers of my commentaries have noted how easy to read and coherent they are, and I have received compliments on my research and documenting of sources. But if I had to speak fluently about those issues, especially without notes or knowing in advance on which issues I will be quizzed, I’d probably stammer more than President Biden did. 

I probably could give good answers only on the subject of the very last commentary I wrote during the previous week or two.

Also, I take days and sometimes weeks to develop a particular column — because of the time I spent copying articles and information from the internet into my laptop files. 

President Biden, however, has sources immediately available that are many times better — a team of world-wise advisers and experts on call round the clock. It’s not the man alone we put in the White House, but the team he brings with him.

Think about that. Would you prefer to have such a team as the one selected by Biden, or one that Trump would assemble?

In addition, perhaps the most important issue is judgment. Good judgment is what we really want in a president — more than anything else. And President Biden generally has displayed a lifetime of good judgment.

Is anyone willing to say the same about Donald Trump? 

And finally, which of the two would you prefer to be filling the next vacancies on the Supreme Court?

Isn’t our voting choice all about the important domestic and world decisions the president must make — and which of the two we would prefer making those decisions?

And doesn’t it go back to what mothers told us when we were young — that actions speak louder than words?

Darrell Berkheimer is a retired journalist whose career spans nearly 60 years. He was city editor and news editor at The Daily Herald, Provo, during the 1970s and ’80s. He also filled newspaper editor positions in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and New Mexico, and is the author of several essays books. Contact him at mtmrnut@yahoo.com. 

The post Guest Editorial: Biden was awful, but at least he answered the questions; that was better than the other guy appeared first on Park Record.