Posted on by Nathan Riley

What Do I Get For My Taxes?

Ralph Nader is a sharp critic of the Democratic Party. For example, he believes the Party made a fatal mistake when they abandoned most states to the Republicans.

Like many critics, he thinks the D’s dug a hole when they devoted their efforts to impeaching and damning Trump. Sensible voters want to know, “What will you do for me?” Hating Trump does not answer this question.

Nonetheless, Nader remains pragmatic. “We’re sick of not having the government return the benefits of massive taxation to us.”

 “All we hear about is empire abroad. All we hear about is more military budgets.”

His attack on the Defense budget is widely shared among left voters. The attackers wish this agency was a giant piggybank that could pay for programs that voters will love, like the expensive proposition of providing healthcare for all. This view is untested in elections. No candidate besides Nader has pushed it, and when he ran he was damned as a spoiler: a vote for him was viewed as a vote for Republicans. Like most Americans, Nader believes the nation and the party is controlled by wealthy donors. Having good ideas for changing this dominance would be popular and improve Democratic chances.

Good advice, even from an unfriendly source, deserves serious consideration. His test: making the government return the benefits of massive taxation is realistic and a guide for supporting or rejecting Democratic policy ideas.

He clearly lowers the importance of helping the transgendered, people of color, women, and other groups. His criterion is good policy is universal. It can answer the question “What will it do for me?” Using this test, the Democrats top priority should be finding policies that bring benefits to every voter.

The most obvious example is ending the copays and the costs of medical insurance. It’s an ambitious idea, saying that a person seeing a doctor shouldn’t have to reach for their wallet will be expensive. It would require constant political support. European countries regularly limit their medical budgets to keep costs in line. Obviously, that restricts some medical care.

 Such a program may be impossible in the United States, given the opposition to taxation. Countries like Sweden devote 41.4% of their gross domestic product to taxes, in return for free college, free medical care, and comprehensive laws governing vacation time, hours of work. A degree of government supervision that would make most Americans apprehensive.

Nonetheless, Democrats should find ways to reduce the cost of medical care. It is a basic program that voters will greet with approval.

Their recent record is discouraging. Since 2023, Congress has passed laws to bring high-speed internet connections to rural areas and schools. The thought is there, but nothing happens. On January 6, 2025, the new Congress updated the laws and time will tell if the high speed connections are installed. The failure by the Democrats to translate the thought into deeds is a reason why rural states are red and backed Trump.

It should be easy to do. Democrats and Republicans favor the idea. It would be a real-life example to the question, “What do we get for our taxes?” Hopefully, these connections will finally go into effect.

Reviving the Democrats requires actual changes to people’s lives. It is one thing to see the need for improving infrastructure, but voters are clearly correct; they want to know what actually got built. Joe Biden made this a priority, but the Democrats never convinced the public that the construction made the United States better.

Nader’s test showing voters how high taxes improve their lives is pragmatic and sensible. Democrats should adopt this test. Surely, the voter who asks, “I pay all these taxes, what do I get?” deserves more than a pat on the back. He or she should actually see the benefits. Reviving the Democratic Party means doing things, not talking about them.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Hunter’s Pardon Can Lead To A New Justice System

Joe Biden, showing a father’s love, pardoned his son Hunter shortly before a federal judge was expected to impose a jail sentence on this man for misdeeds committed years ago while he was getting trashed daily. That kind of drug use is in Hunter’s past, and his pride and his sense of achievement following the breaking of his habit radiates through the media cloud that has shadowed him for years.

It is my belief that this act of charity and love could be the start of something big—ending a blight on American Justice that equates being tough on crime with being mean to criminals. Jailing a person for lying on a form in order to complete a legal purchase of a gun or being a wealthy tax cheat who paid his bill, albeit late; evidence showed these offenses presented no threat to public safety. Hence, a jail term imposed in accordance with sentencing guidelines is just plain mean.

Mean to him and mean to others in similar situations. Want to know why the United States jails more people than other developed countries? Without the pardon, Hunter would join the incarcerated. It would be good for justice and good for the United States to use Hunter’s case as the reason for reform.

Hunter was forced to hire a lawyer and go before the Judge. For him as well as countless others, it is a sobering experience and often is sufficient punishment.  The procedure makes it clear as crystal that these acts are illegal and criminal. It is reasonable to assume Hunter or other defendants would receive and understand the message.

But the law pushes judges to be mean and impose jail time lasting many months for what are only malfeasances. Hunter will at best be a footnote in histories of Genocide Joe’s presidency, but we shouldn’t let that happen. It should be the start of a new mood in U.S. criminal justice. This country jails more people than any developed nation. It is repugnant to the notion of justice that this nation is number one in this category.

There are reasons for optimism. Donald Trump has made a firm commitment to free the prisoners convicted for their acts during the Jan 6, 2020 assault on the U.S. Capitol. An illegal riot to stop Biden from becoming president. This group put their bodies on the line to help Trump stay in office. Their prosecution was political and sensible. A large group probably thousands in all thought they could coerce the government into overturning the election. They didn’t do this legally and they didn’t do it peacefully.

The Jan 6 prosecutions showed angry Trump supporters that the law governing elections had teeth. Recent history suggests the lesson has been learned. During his criminal trial in Manhattan Trump reached out to his supporters, and they didn’t show up. His militant backers had learned their lesson.

As a result of these trials, the more cautious friends of these militants, those who said, “Don’t be foolish, go the rally and stay away from the riot” became the smart ones; their advice was the smart move. This is how criminal justice should work.

These lessons will not go away even if Trump cuts these prisoners loose. The President can be loyal to his supporters, and they will still remember: they don’t want to go back to jail. Letting the rioters out of prison is a defensible act—proof that justice demands charity, being mean is a defect in a system striving for justice. In other words, Republicans might abandon their tough on crime mantra.

This is a dramatic development. Only the Republicans can do this; Dems fear Republican attack if they are “soft” on crime. In other words, Dems and Republicans might work together and still confront crime while also preserving compassion. It would be good for American justice, a new mood.

A reason for optimism is that Republicans are changing because the shoe has begun to fit. Their supporters and they have faced criminal sanctions, hence they want criminal justice reform. Getting tough has worked; it is time to show charity.

During the election, Trump got hit daily with the pseudo fact that he was a “convicted” criminal. It is a half-truth. Yes, a jury found him guilty, but his case was on appeal, and early indications suggest that the appeals will help Trump. It is possible that the charges will be minimized on appeal. Trump would seize on these decisions to justify his claims that the cases were political.

In truth, laws are political. They are written by politicians in legislative bodies. Consequently, these officials can change the laws. The presidential candidate and his supporters felt the wrath of the criminal justice system.  It seems possible that Trump will free Black and Spanish speaking prisoners cementing his growing strength in these voter blocks. If this happens, Democrats should insist that every convict be given new options.

Hunter Biden’s pardon creates a political possibility that Dems and Republicans may work together to change the law, including making prison sentence softer and shorter.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Democrats Must Fight Back Now

Don’t look back. Look ahead. Get ready for 2026. We can learn from the past if we are guided with a purpose: doing better next time.

Don’t spend time blaming the Vice-President’s campaign.

Donald Trump pounded the message: “Kamala is for ‘they/them.’ President Trump is for you.” It’s a brilliant tag line and a direct hit on Kamala Harris as being for those people who sign their messages They/them.

What can be done?

Senator Bernie Sanders insists voters are angry, but that anger is not Democratic or Republican. They know the economy is rigged; the rich get more while the rest of us just get by. They/them isn’t the problem. Democrats, he believes, must tap into this anger to prove they are for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Don’t let Republicans define the message. They/them isn’t the problem; high rents, evictions, and food costs are.

Why should food companies raise prices when their profits are soaring is a Bernie Sanders focus. Democrats should choose sides and make it clear that the food companies are a problem.

The Vermont socialist has an answer to Republican charges of elitism: “the Democrats lost this election because they ignored the justified anger of working class America.” In this election, the Party “became the defenders of a rigged economic and political system.”

Trump controlled the debate. He was able to convert the anxiety/hostility towards trans persons and immigrants into a general attack on Democrats. “Trump’s ‘genius’,” Sanders wrote “is his ability to divide the working class so that tens of millions of Americans will reject solidarity with their fellow workers and pave the way for huge tax breaks for the very rich and large corporations.”

Don’t let the Republicans define the issues. Focus on making the economy work for everyone.

Trump’s campaign got away with nonsense. He rebelled against the woke culture. “They/them” isn’t a serious problem. Healthcare that doesn’t “cover home health care, dental, hearing, and vision” is a national failure. Democrats should urge the public focus on these issues.

Sanders presses the Democrats to change the conversation. Why should the Citizens United decision allow billionaires to buy elections? He offers fourteen proposals that work, but only if the Party feeds voter anger.

He would campaign to raise the minimum wage and pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act to make it easier for workers to unionize. These ideas don’t raise taxes or government spending. Other ideas, like expanding Medicaid and Medicare coverage, have big costs. But he argues they are so popular that the costs, offset by smaller payments to the pharmaceutical industry, would be acceptable to a majority.

His fourteen proposals are tactically sound. Some would provoke Republican tax arguments; others would make the economy fairer, that is where the Democrats will gai strength.

And he wants Democrats to start now. They should offer the public a choice between Democrat and Republican plans. The Democrats should offer a real choice that exposes the Republican’s vacuous ideas. For example, support making all public colleges tuition free. In this way, Democrats can build solidarity in many groups simultaneously. The focus becomes the idea and “they/them” stops being a roadblock and becomes a bump in the road.

In this election, the Republicans increased their vote. Trump received 75.6 million, [as of November 15 76.4] compared to 74.2 million in 2020. The Republican gains were moderate while Democratic losses were a landslide. Harris received 71.8 million, [as of Nov 15 73.7] compared to Biden’s 81.3 million votes in 2020. 9.5 million [7.6M as of Nov 15] fewer votes ought to spur the Democrats into publicizing an American future drastically different from Trump’s MAGA vision. Democrats shouldn’t wait even though they are in the minority; they should start offering a real choice.

Clearly, the Democratic left and center must cooperate in developing these new rationales. This is a task for the whole party. Centrist Democrats have to stop blaming the left for their problems. Why not use the left for inspiration?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will the Democratic Love-Fest Continue?

The worriers were wrong. The Democrats replaced Joe Biden without a fight, without disruption. Sixth grade civics won out: the President is sick, the Vice-President takes over.

Party unity was jolted, fed by enthusiasm. Kamala Harris for President was greeted by Democrats with an immense sigh of relief: she looked healthy and able to do the job. Almost immediately, stories leaked about what the Wall Street Journal called her ten-hour telephone “marathon” after Biden pulled out of the race. Over one hundred calls, so the story went, and it carried a double message. She was organized, had the phone numbers, and could reach hundreds of Democratic decision-makers. She asked for support, and as everybody has heard, they gave it to her. Her energy also made it clear that she could reach out and help party members with their problems. Her White House would be accessible.

The fast turnover made it clear that supporters of an open convention, where candidates would have an opportunity to be heard, were offering bad advice. The doctor would have been prescribing chaos. Instead, Joe Biden endorsed Kamala and, more to the point, turned over his campaign staff and hundred-million-dollar bank account to her. Hickety-split the turnover fell into place.

Kamala is talking the language of continuity. For the left, there is hope that their friends at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission will continue their policies for another four years.

Foreign policy will divide Democrats: Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not chosen peace, but in these places it has chosen sides. In the Ukraine, it is the pro-Western government; in Gaza, it is Israel. The results are catastrophic. Gaza is being demolished, and Ukraine’s infrastructure is crumbling. It seems certain that U.S. foreign policy will receive sharp scrutiny. How Democrats cope with these decisions will be a major problem for the next President. Trump or Harris will confront this grave predicament.

The left appears committed to peaceful solutions. It can make friends or in an extreme case look unreliable. Turning American foreign policy in a new direction is no easy matter. It should provide many opportunities for gaining friends and entering into mutually beneficial arrangements. Plainly it will be a dominant issue in January 2025.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Biden and the Left

Why are left Democrats supporting Joe Biden?

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and AOC, the member of Congress from the Bronx and Queens, don’t want him to leave. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes it is “crazy” to think the Democrats can drop Biden and preserve their momentum in November.

On Instagram Live, she supported the President and thought an open convention would lead to trouble. She believes party leaders show a “lack of thought” on how to confront legal challenges associated with replacing the nominee.

She called it “disturbing” that wealthy donors and social media “groupthink” are driving the debate. It could bring charges that would weaken the support that Biden has from union members and older Americans.

Obviously, Sanders and AOC don’t think Biden is perfect, but they also know that in many areas the Democrats are accepting left ideas. The President’s power to appoint is also the power to set policy. Government agencies under Biden have opened policy debates that would die with a Trump presidency, and whose fate would become uncertain with a new presidential candidate.

The National Labor Relations Board is willing to listen to workers’ complaints about unfair practices from bosses. This is big plus for unions. The Federal Trade Commission has started anti-trust actions that will need years to resolve. A new President might go in a different direction. Even if that direction is a positive one, the change in policy would harm the initiatives started by the Federal Trade Commission.

For the first time, federal agencies are discussing caps on rent for landlords receiving government tax breaks. The agencies are considering a limit on rent increases for those corporations receiving the tax benefits. It’s the first time the federal government has considered an activist policy to curb rent hikes. Traditionally, that has been a local matter. A federal restriction would benefit millions of families.

It’s not just abortion where the Biden administration has done a good job. Rents, restrictions on the power of Google, and assisting unions trying to organize workers have benefited from Biden’s influence.

It is no wonder that AOC thinks that the involvement of big donors spells trouble that might harm these Biden programs. It is unlikely that big donors want to make life easier for union organizing or to have rent increases restricted. By focusing on Biden’s infirmities, they could be laying the groundwork to rejuvenate conservative Democrats.

Sanders and AOC are being prudent and perhaps clairvoyant, but elections are almost always laced with judgment calls, and 2024 is no different. We don’t know what November will bring.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Stranger Danger

          Joe Biden’s troubles shouldn’t change Freedom Democrats’ minds. We support him even with health problems.

Stranger danger is one reason for staying away from Republicans. It’s a basic Republican principle that strangers should make decisions that in a free country should be the responsibility of one person.

Becoming a mother is a responsibility that lasts decades. It should be the mother who decides to accept this responsibility, but Republicans insist that government—that is, the strangers—law enforcement, and churches should be equal partners. Although the fetus never expresses an opinion, right-to-life sympathizers inject themselves into a decision that realistically is the responsibility of the mother. These strangers believe they know what will protect the child and in fact that they can ignore the mother’s choice.

This is absurd. Consider a good thing; a referendum proposal in Arkansas that would permit  abortions up to sixteen weeks and in cases with special medical needs. This is a good faith effort to find a middle ground between pro-choice advocates and right-to-life diehards by permitting a procedure. If the bill gets on the ballot, it should be supported.

However, four months is a reasonable period for an adult comfortable with her body, but what about a fourteen-year-old girl who has an irregular menstrual cycle? She could easily take more than four months before she recognizes her pregnancy. These types of problems are aggravated by stranger danger. At least to my mind, I don’t want a child to become a mother unless her family is willing to accept the responsibility. This is just one of the dozens of real-life examples that make it difficult, if not impossible to write rules about the complexity of human relationships.

In a free society, the mother should choose. Strangers have no business making rules about complicated problems like this. It’s already a difficult decision, and allowing strangers to make it more difficult is destructive and impinges on freedom.

This is only one of the areas where thoughtless government officials and their public supporters allow private matters to become the business of strangers.

These decisions can be fatal. When it became clear that OxyContin was making some users have a compulsive habit, little help was offered to them, and public wrath was unleashed on pharmaceutical companies for making the drug.

Users were simply told, “Stop!” To nobody’s surprise, while some stopped others entered the illegal market. Politicians thoughtlessly expanded crime. Nobody tells a heavy person, “Stop eating!” But the powers that be, without thinking, huffed and puffed and said, “No more. You can’t get this drug. We’re going to make it illegal.” By doing this, the government forced drug users to enter the illegal market and get close fentanyl. Thousands have died because strangers thought they could tell a person what pills they can use.

What’s worse is that the strangers are accepting magical beliefs in the power of these illegal drugs. People who use drugs have individual reactions to their choice of highs. Some drug users go to work, live responsible lives; others get wrapped up in depression, and the law cruelly magnifies their problems. Very few homosexuals are child-molesters, and the number of drug users whose lives are ruined  by their high is far smaller than lawmakers claim. Once again, strangers who have little experience are making life-and-death decisions that properly belong to the individual and his doctor.

Sex work also runs the gambit of human behavior. Some are graduate students working on their PhD. Others are homeless and distressed. Making their life illegal allows strangers to interfere in private concerns, when the object in a free society would be to help people live their lives even if they rent their bodies, abort their pregnancies, or choose to take drugs.

Obviously, the Democrats are only occasionally helpful on drugs and sex work. They almost universally want to keep strangers away from decisions about pregnancy.

The key difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is a willingness to learn. At one time, many Democrats were against abortion-law reform; today, the party is nearly unanimous. In the areas of drugs and sex work, many Democrats are open-minded. Democrats are far more willing to consider stranger danger than Republicans, who self-righteously insist they know how individuals should live their lives.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Biden Challenges GOP Prejudices

Kamala Harris’s mother is from India, her father Jamaica. She challenges Republican prejudices against immigrants just as much as her biracial ancestry clashes with their desire for white supremacy. Joe Biden has thrown red meat at Republican core supporters who whooped and hollered when Trump called Mexicans’ rapists.

This display of courage by Joe Biden calls into question the belief that Obama’s Vice-President is too old for the job. At a gut levels he knows how to fight. There is nothing feeble about choosing the California Senator who will be a target for Trump’s antipathy.
Although he is old at 74 the President has no fear of contradiction. He says Biden is too “sleepy” for the job and that Harris is too “nasty.” The Senator has a sharp tongue raising the President always high level of anxiety, but he will vent his hostility on her. Republicans are likely to say she will be running the country with her left ideas. But it is improbable that the charges of socialism will work, Bernie Sanders isn’t running.

By all accounts Harris is eager to engage in this battle.

Biden has no plans for a passive presidency. Time and again he says what he will do will depend on who is in Congress. Translation, the more Democrats the more far reaching the reforms. This is a promise Biden can keep. He has spent a career in the Senate and working through them will come easily.

Biden campaigned against Medicare for All, but Covid 19 proved that American medical care can’t mobilize when facing a sudden increase in disease. Biden’s reforms will be in the name of the public option, but here is hoping he will challenge Republican prejudice against government assistance.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Biden Goes After GOP Prejudices.

Kamala Harris’s mother is from India, her father Jamaica. She challenges Republican prejudices against immigrants just as much as her biracial ancestry clashes with their desire for white supremacy. Joe Biden has thrown red meat at Republican core supporters who whooped and hollered when Trump called Mexicans’ rapists.

This display of courage by Joe Biden calls into question the belief that Obama’s Vice-President is too old for the job. At a gut levels he knows how to fight. There is nothing feeble about choosing the California Senator who will be a target for Trump’s antipathy.

Although he is old at 74 the President has no fear of contradiction. He says Biden is too “sleepy” for the job and that Harris is too “nasty.” The Senator has a sharp tongue raising the President always high level of anxiety, but he will vent his hostility on her. Republicans are likely to say she will be running the country with her left ideas. But it is improbable that the charges of socialism will work, Bernie Sanders isn’t running.

By all accounts Harris is eager to engage in this battle.

Biden has no plans for a passive presidency. Time and again he says what he will do will depend on who is in Congress. Translation, the more Democrats the more far reaching the reforms. This is a promise Biden can keep. He has spent a career in the Senate and working through them will come easily.

Biden campaigned against Medicare for All, but Covid 19 proved that American medical care can’t organize or mobile a sudden increase in disease. Biden’s reforms will be in the name of the public option, but here is hoping he will challenge Republican prejudice against government assistance.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Proclaiming Victory

Proclaiming victory. The left should shout with pride-it’s a Bernie Sanders victory! His two candidacies arrived at an historic moment and given us the rebirth of a left-wing political force, well-financed, with the capacity to stay in the race and learn from its mistakes.

The result is awesome- the left has a future. After two presidential campaigns-an in-your-face unapologetic socialist movement had the support of about 3 in 10 of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries. This is the rebirth of the left as a significant political force. It’s an historic moment.

Even after victories, Joe Biden is looking over his shoulder to see if the pandemic will tip matters in Bernie’s direction. The left is a power in U.S. politics, it should savor its progress and pursue its campaign to make capitalism fair and just with renewed vigor.

The Corona Virus has made Medicare for all a national necessity. A first step is the $150 billion in the economic stimulus to help hospitals treat the surge in patients.

An obvious sign that this is historic moment is the abrupt return of the bi-partisan Congress. Remarkably the United States Senate is in a can-do mood. This Republican body where votes often divided on party line have unanimously passed the biggest economic aid package in history. The virus and public health warnings have united the warring political parties—historic.

Moreover the aid package includes key Democratic demands like increasing the miserly unemployment benefits, and money for income-tax filers. Passing in record speed again with Republican support.  Even Trump joined in.

Of course, Bernie has little to do with these changes. Events caused this new cooperation. But Republicans and Democrats adopted policies that are compatible with Bernie’s ideas. It’s a testimony to the validity of his ideas, just as the failure of his campaign to win the nomination is a reason to revise the left’s program.

Anticipating that unemployment applications would go through the roof, the Senate’s $2 trillion package boosted unemployment insurance payment by $600. This is a radical move. The national average unemployment benefit check reports the Washington Post is currently $385 a week, which is “less than half the typical weekly paycheck in the United States.” Supplementing this money, most income tax filers will be eligible for one-time payments of between $1200 to $2400 and $500 per child. This is compatible with a guaranteed income, the socialist alternative to welfare payments for those belittled as needy.

Bernie insisted his plans weren’t radical. It turns out he is right. Confronting a public health imposed recession, Republicans and Democrats responded by helping the wage earner. Sander’s values and politics are majoritarian.

The package started at one trillion and but to become law it reached $2T, the path to unanimity required spend, spend, and spend more. Traditionally Republicans have criticized this policy but practiced it, the Democrats usually opted for a balanced budget. Bernie was identified with those who thought government spending would increase wages and economic growth. When push came to shove everybody accepted this policy.

The day after Senate passage came the news that the United States had entered a new era-3.3 million wage earners had filed for unemployment insurance. It dwarfed a 38-year-old record from 1982 when 665,000 applied in one week. This number is a mere fraction of 3.3 million, another sign that we are in a historic era. In the space of three weeks the United States has gone from full employment at 3.5% to projections of 5% or more.

A sudden government imposed economic downturn is a new historic reality. Only time will tell if it brings an authoritarian or democratic result. One thing is certain the left will fight for a democratic result.

Bernie’s plea for Medicare for all met a vicious counterattack from Democrats. The stand patters claimed it would harm those with gold plated health insurance exploiting divisions within the Democratic Party. The attackers called themselves pragmatists and take pride in their political realism refused to recognize that this line of attack weakened the Democratic Party. These supposed realists created conflict when harmony is a wiser course.  Bernie’s policies often strengthen the party by uniting the prosperous and those struggling to make ends meet. This is an opportunity the pragmatists rejected. They asserted, it would never work, it would never pass. In a few short weeks, this political realism evaporated.

Bernie would bring those who have seen their living conditions stagnate back into the Democratic Party. This 2 trillion-dollar package creates such an opportunity for Democrats. Bernie would be wise to point this out and try to persuade the pragmatist to try idealism. Leadership from the left is possible.

The Corona Virus has shown that Bernie is right, big activist government is in the national interest and in the Democrat’s best interest. The left shouldn’t be shy about pointing out the political realism of their policies.

Normally, politicians believe the candidate who articulates an optimistic view of the future wins.

The Democratic Party has yet to take advantage of the left’s view that global warming represents a unique opportunity to move the United States into a prosperous future.  The pragmatist should embrace the policy of rebuilding the American economy so that is environmentally friendly. This is the path to economic prosperity, higher wages, and shorter work week giving Americans more hours of leisure.  This is the socialist nirvana that the Left can urge on the Democratic Party.

The left will have an opportunity when it comes time to restore the U.S. economy to press its objective. Party leaders would do well to see the essential realism in left-wing demands.

Bernie has started the ball rolling. Events have demonstrated that the Federal Government not private enterprise is the safety net.  Bernie offers an alternative.  It is more than a safety net, it should be the engine of prosperity and may be just maybe after we will restore prosperity and bring climate change under control.