By:
On:
In: Artificial intelligence, Commentary, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Technology

Artificial intelligence news is everywhere. From the recent cover of Time proclaiming, “The AI Arms Race is Changing Everything,” to an AI-generated art on the cover of Vogue, the AI fever is palpable.

While today’s focus is on the mind-boggling features of new AI tools, future headlines will center on the inevitable battle to regulate and control the technology. When that time comes, you can bet California’s politicians will want to lead.

The hype is warranted. New generative AI tools represent a serious leap in capabilities by generating shockingly coherent text and images. The most well-known is ChatGPT, a chat interface that has become a cultural phenomenon and the fastest app in history to reach 100 million users.

However, ChatGPT is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of other generative AI tools are being created to create digital art, and being trained to offer more specialized, industry-specific services.

Silicon Valley has gone into a frenzied overdrive as all the major tech giants work to surpass each other’s AI capabilities and new startups work to capitalize on the buzz. Wall Street executives have already declared generative AI the technology of the decade, and Microsoft’s CEO promised that “AI will fundamentally change every software category.”

While AI has the potential to be the most exciting technology of the decade, it would almost certainly also be the most politically controversial.

Politicians will care about AI because it promises to pour gasoline onto existing tech battles while also introducing a whole new set of problems. For example, the misinformation campaigns around the 2016 election will look like child’s play once bad actors implement AI tools and can generate an endless supply of hateful, human-like content.

AI technology will also make current debates around privacy and data rights look quaint. Generative AI allows users to create compelling variations of past art, speech and writing, blurring the lines of plagiarism and intellectual property. AI makes it easy to mimic someone’s tone or appearance to create imitation text, speech and even deepfake porn using people’s public information.

Regulators will certainly want to see new rules about which data AI models are allowed to be trained on and what they’re able to create. But who will draw the line on what is defined as acceptable use and how a person’s data can be used? More concerningly, how will any rules possibly be enforced when models are cheap, widely deployed and beyond the reach of our current enforcement tools?

In addition to making existing problems worse, policymakers will also be concerned about the impact on jobs. A recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that roughly half of those who used ChatGPT have already replaced workers. Generative AI tools are already capable of performing entry-level tasks. While this doesn’t mean we’ll see mass white-collar unemployment, these tools could result in an economic restructuring where there’s less demand for lower-end audio engineers, copywriters, software engineers, business analysts and any other job done at a keyboard.

How will states like California react if a portion of knowledge worker jobs disappear? Those people will likely find new work in the long-term as AI creates new opportunities, but could lead to unprecedented labor market shocks that destabilizes communities and our tax base.

Whenever these battles arrive, state policymakers need to be among the first to act. Just as with other divisive national issues, California will want to assert its ability to shape the national policy agenda just like it has on carbon emissions, electric vehicles and data privacy protection laws.

California has never shied away from being a leader, and there’s no reason to believe this time will be different as Washington D.C. remains gridlocked. While we can’t predict how society will react to AI, the early battles will likely be fought in Sacramento.

Jarrett Catlin is a vice president at Tusk Strategies. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Drought, Marin Municipal Water District, Marin Voice, MMWD, Monty Schmitt, newsletter, Opinion, water, Water supply
Monty Schmitt is a Marin Municipal Water District director representing San Rafael's District 2. (Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal)
Monty Schmitt is a Marin Municipal Water District director representing San Rafael’s District 2. (Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal)

For over 110 years, the Marin Municipal Water District has delivered clean, reliable and affordable water to customers.

To maintain this record of service, we must not only increase our resilience to drought and climate change with new water supplies, but also fund the replacement and modernization of aging infrastructure and work to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire on our watershed lands.

The MMWD Board of Directors, bolstered by three new members elected last November, is united with dedicated district staff, in partnership with our customers, to forge a path forward to implement the following actions.

On Feb. 28, the district adopted a water supply roadmap based on our strategic water supply assessment pairing immediate and long-term actions to increase our water supplies. Our initial commitment will develop an estimated 3,500 acre-feet of new water by the end of 2025 through several measures:

• Supply permanent power to enable increased water supplies from Soulajule Reservoir.

• Increase yield from Phoenix Lake by building a direct connection to Bon Tempe Treatment Plant.

• Improve management of water supplies and flow releases through better forecasting of storms.

• Optimize water purchases from Sonoma Water.

• Expand conservation investments to increase efficient water use.

Simultaneously, Marin Water will pursue options to achieve longer-term supply goals – this includes exploring the feasibility of groundwater banking and increases to local surface storage, enhancing local water supplies.

Most of our water comes from 22,000 acres of protected lands around Mount Tamalpais and in the hills of West Marin. Rainfall from these watersheds flows into seven reservoirs before being treated and delivered to customers’ taps.

To safeguard this precious resource, Marin Water is expanding efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, manage recreational use of our lands and protect the ecological health of our watersheds.

Our infrastructure enables us to provide clean drinking water to your taps. But years of focus on keeping costs down has led to a significant backlog of maintenance on this aging system, where some elements are nearing 100 years of use. When old cast iron pipes break, it disrupts service and repairs are more costly. To ensure the reliability of our system to deliver water now and for future generations, we are implementing a program of ongoing, steady long-term investment in our infrastructure.

Foundational to a future with continued reliable water is a sustainable financial plan to create new water supplies, keep our system in a state of good repair, and protect the watersheds that provide our water.

Achieving these critical initiatives requires targeted, forward-thinking investments. That is why as part of our current rate-setting process Marin Water is proposing a strategic rate increase.

In doing so, Marin Water will fund long-term water supply goals while also prioritizing financial sustainability amid reduced water sales driven by drought and impacts tied to record inflation and increasing costs that we are all experiencing at the grocery store.

We know any rate increase may feel impactful for some customers, but we also know continuing to kick the can down the road undermines our water system’s resilience and unfairly saddles future generations with escalating costs.

Marin Water will also continue to provide one of the best low-income bill assistance programs in the Bay Area to maintain affordability for ratepayers most in need. Through the rate-setting process, we are also proposing to restructure our tiered rates in a way that allows customers greater control over their water bills.

Marin Water is moving past planning and is ready to implement these actions and set the District on a path toward a resilient future.

This work must be collaborative, among Marin Water leaders and you, our community of customers. We all ask for your engagement and support.

Monty Schmitt is president of the Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors. He represents San Rafael’s District 2. For more information about the programs and initiatives referenced, go to marinwater.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Drought, Gavin Newsom, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Water supply

Two recent watershed decisions in California exemplified how difficult it is to manage this precious resource.

Last month, many water leaders applauded Gov. Gavin Newsom for taking quick action to suspend a 1999 environmental regulation and keep more water in reservoirs on a temporary basis. This was a commonsense and prudent move to allow California to adapt in the face of changed climate conditions and severe pressure on the state’s other main source of supply, the Colorado River.

The thinking: Let’s hold on to this water now in case drier times are ahead.

Then the weather forecast changed. A warm atmospheric river shifted course, threatening to melt record snowpack in California’s mountains and send huge quantities of water through the state’s waterways. To prevent catastrophic flooding and operate dams safely, the state acted quickly to release water, creating room in its reservoirs for new flows.

An executive order by Newsom last week suspended regulations and restrictions on permitting and use to enable water agencies and water users to divert flood stage water to boost groundwater recharge. The State Water Resources Control Board rescinded its previous order.

For casual watchers of California water news, the two decisions made just over two weeks apart might seem like a head-scratching reversal. But the reality is that these are the types of forecast-informed, dynamic decisions we must make to manage our water supply.

It’s cliché, but California has to hope for the best while planning for the worst.

The governor and the state water agencies deserve credit for their quick action and willingness to take the necessary measures as weather conditions changed.

The reality is that some laws and regulations about how much water should flow in winter months through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system were set a long time ago and are not conducive to the kind of adaptive management we now need.

Back in 1999, these regulations were placed with the best information we had, aiming to balance the needs of the environment with those of the millions of people who depend the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Things have changed, and it’s time to reshape how we think about these releases. Decades ago, California could count on its snowpack to hold the water in storage until it melted slowly over the spring. Now, California sees more intense periods of rain and longer, drier and hotter months. This means we must find ways to support beneficial uses and time the release of water supplies for health, safety, the economy and the environment, as well as build more storage and modernize the state’s water delivery system.

There’s growing and credible evidence that reservoir management should happen in real-time, accounting for actual conditions in the river system. The Public Policy Institute of California last year recommended taking a hard look at regulations that govern protections for fish in the Delta.

As PPIC adjunct fellow Greg Gartrell put it: “Some of the rules are tied to water-year type and are fairly rigid, not adapting to the range of hydrology in a single year. We need to revisit the biological basis for the numerous, overlapping restrictions to be both more protective of the Delta environment and more efficient in pumping. And we need to be more nimble, able to adjust pumping restrictions based on real-time hydrology and biological conditions.”

Newsom and the state water board made the right call on both decisions. Temporarily suspending the requirement to release water in February was the prudent move based on weather forecasts. Reversing the decision last week in light of changing conditions was the right call, too.

The fact that these happened in such close succession exemplifies how we must adapt to our changed weather circumstances in ways that previous decisions simply did not envision. The climate has changed and so must our actions.

Charley Wilson is the executive director of the Southern California Water Coalition. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Tesla

California’s Office of Traffic Safety needs to do what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration so far failed to achieve: Keep Californians safe from Tesla’s flawed full self-driving beta software.

A nationwide recall of 362,758 Tesla vehicles equipped with full self-driving, or FSD, software didn’t go far enough. Worse, NHTSA has been handling Tesla with kid gloves.

Specifically, the recall indicated that the software may allow the vehicle to act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane; entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop; or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution. The vehicle may respond insufficiently to changes in posted speed limits. And the FSD software does not adequately account for the driver’s adjustment of the vehicle’s speed to exceed posted speed limits.

Still, numerous issues remain with the recall:

• Teslas with FSD software are still on the road, and the company hasn’t even asked owners to turn the software off and not use it.

• Tesla has said it will deliver its fix for the defects remotely, but hasn’t provided details about how or when that will be done.

• For its part, NHTSA hasn’t given Tesla a deadline to make the fixes.

• Moreover, neither NHTSA nor Tesla has put a review process in place to guarantee the software fixes are effective.

• In fact, Tesla’s software update could actually exacerbate problems in the code or even lead to other unintended effects. On a personal note, as a software developer myself, I’m painfully aware that glitches can cascade in unpredictable ways.

California deserves better. If NHTSA is going to allow Tesla to “soft pedal” the dangerous flaws in its FSD beta software, California’s OTS needs to act with fast, decisive courage.

The state already helped lead the way toward holding Tesla accountable with the passage of state Sen. Lena Gonzalez’s Senate Bill 1398, which took effect in January. The new law essentially bans Tesla from advertising its vehicles as “full self-driving.”

A Tesla shareholder lawsuit filed in late February created even more momentum to hold Tesla accountable, accusing the company, Elon Musk and others of making false and misleading claims about Tesla’s self-driving capabilities.

NHTSA only negotiated the voluntary recall with Tesla after a Super Bowl TV ad, sponsored by The Dawn Project, criticized NHTSA’s continued inaction. The commercial showed what happened when we put Tesla’s FSD to the test, and the results were alarming.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for self-driving vehicles. I believe they’re the wave of the future for an efficient transportation system. In fact, I happily own several Teslas – but I don’t rely on their faulty FSD capability.

California has served as an incubator for self-driving vehicle technology. You can’t walk or drive down the streets of San Francisco, for example, without seeing them in action.

But there is a big difference between responsibly testing the technology, as other companies have done, and irresponsibly loading hundreds of thousands of Teslas with the beta version of software that Tesla seemingly knew was flawed.

Tesla would deserve more credit if it was transparent and conscientious about its response to those flaws. But stonewalling followed by a half-hearted recall – with no clear plan for improvement – shows neglect for California Tesla drivers, not to mention complete disregard for other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Tesla’s full self-driving beta software is dangerous. The state of California has the power to keep this menacing software off the road unless and until it is proven safe.

Dan O’Dowd is founder of The Dawn Project and is president and CEO of Green Hills Software. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Drought, Latino Americans, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Water supply

Generations of Californians have taken for granted how water is engineered to enable the grand agricultural nature of this state.

Recently, our water system suffered from severe drought and reduced snowpacks. The Colorado River is in peril. Some wells have gone dry. Water has been contaminated. Land has lost value. People have lost their livelihoods.

Such dilemmas are exacerbated in disadvantaged communities. Large Central Valley growers over pump water from wells in direct violation of the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Meanwhile, families in farmworker towns go without clean and affordable water. They still pay high water bills while resorting to bottled water to cook, bathe and drink provided by government, nonprofits and labor unions.

Consider the harsh reality of a Coachella Valley Latino mother bathing her small children in water laced with arsenic. Families living in trailer parks need water filters in kitchen and bathroom sinks and showers to avoid contaminants – while working on luxury Palm Springs golf courses nearby where water usage is not a concern.

To remedy these inequities and avoid water catastrophes, Water Education for Latino Leaders, or WELL, has educated 650 elected and appointed California leaders on water issues for a decade through conferences and forums. Disseminating information empowers constituents to make correct decisions.

An array of recommendations – from conservation to desalination – will prepare California for future water shortages. The federal government wants to reduce California’s share of Colorado River water. In recent years, officials scaled back water shipped from Northern California rivers to the Central Valley and Southern California. Local water agencies are urging reduced water usage.

These efforts aren’t enough, even with recent rains. Local leaders must understand extreme water challenges, many driven by global warming. They have the most credibility with voters and residents. People see them at their churches, schools, farmers markets and soccer fields. They are elected to be their voices on public bodies.

This bottom-up strategy among those closest to the people is vital. The times demand fair and sustainable solutions to new realities in this era of climate change impacting water. With so many Americans harboring disdain for national and state leaders, local leadership remains essential.

Latino elected officials, in particular, must understand how water issues affect their often-neglected communities, where so many believe they have little or no voice in the political process even as the social inequities surrounding water policy are inescapable. It is a fateful paradox that while keeping our food system functioning falls heaviest on the backs of Latino workers, they are most frequently plagued by water contamination and scarcity.

Local Latino elected leaders need to be their voice by being properly informed since they are on the frontlines of passing and administering bond funding, infrastructure contracts and raising public awareness.

Hard decisions lie ahead. Water will need to be conserved in our households, businesses, and yes, in agriculture.

Monthly water bills will remain expensive to maintain infrastructure despite consuming less water through conservation. Old broken pipes need to be replaced while investing in new technology preventing contaminants. Agriculture and other industries have dumped pollutants into groundwater for 50 years. Cleaning them up is costly but necessary to tap vast amounts of water in local aquifers.

Finally, voters will surely be asked to approve water tax hikes or bonds to finance increased efforts by local water agencies to manage the crisis.

Water is a precious, life-giving treasure. An indispensable solution is educating local elected officials so they can serve as the people’s champions.

Victor Griego is the founder of Water Education for Latino Leaders. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: BART, California Budget, Census 2020, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Opinion Columnists, public transportation

California’s years of major population growth have ended, and a state forecast suggests that the numbers might peak by as early as 2030 and then start to decline.

At the turn of the century, when the population was about 34 million, state forecasters were predicting 45 million by 2020 and 59 million by 2040. That isn’t happening.

Instead, California’s population hit 39.5 million in 2020, dipped down to 39.0 million in the first two years of the pandemic and, according to data published by the California Department of Transportation, will max out at about 40.5 million by the end of the decade.

Whether it’s talk of a new BART transbay tube, keeping underutilized schools open or continuing to sink billions into high-speed rail, it’s time for local and state government officials to recalibrate. Projects that were conceived based on the assumption of an expanding California population will no longer make sense. We shouldn’t keep planning and budgeting as if the state’s numbers will continue to grow significantly.

The days of California’s population boom are over. The Caltrans forecast, prepared in 2021, shows the population holding at about 40.5 million through 2036 and then dropping to 39.0 million by 2050.

The state’s official projections from the Department of Finance continue to show slow population growth over the next two decades, reaching 43 million by 2040. But the department plans to revise those numbers by early next year. More important, even the department’s current projections fall way short of its boom forecast at the turn of the century.

While the pandemic applied pressure to the brakes, the slowing in California growth began long before, which raises the question of how forecasters two decades ago so badly missed the mark.

There are many reasons, says Hans Johnson, senior fellow and demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California. Birth rates have been lower than expected. Deaths have been higher. International migration into the state has not been as high as forecast.

And, most important, domestic migration out of the state has exceeded expectations. Simply put, people are leaving California for cheaper housing elsewhere, lower taxes or someplace less crowded.

The out-migration has gotten much attention since the start of the pandemic. But this is not a new trend. For each year of the past two decades, more Californians have left the state for other parts of the country than have done the reverse.

Like in the middle of the first decade of the century, the net out-migration number steadily increased from 2015-19. Then the pandemic hit. In the first year, 2020, net out-migration eased a bit but then accelerated rapidly the following two years, hitting a record 406,982 in 2022.

Coupled with other demographic trends, including increasing deaths, the pandemic years have produced the state’s first years of population decline.

Whether that continues will depend on disparate factors, such as: Will California build enough housing to balance supply and demand so more people can afford to live here? Will the sharp drop in life expectancy triggered by the pandemic — from about 81 in 2019 to about 79 in 2020 — subside? Preliminary estimates suggest that in 2021, California life expectancy dropped another half year, according to a January report by Johnson and his colleague Eric McGhee.

Nevertheless, California’s population is aging, which will increase the demand for health care and senior living facilities. And it’s becoming more racially diverse. At the same time the state is ceding political clout; it lost one seat in Congress in the last reapportionment and will likely lose more after the 2030 census.

While it’s uncertain whether the state will continue to lose population, the days of rapid-growth projections are over. Which means we shouldn’t keep spending money on projects that relied on the forecasts of the past.

We can’t continue to build more public projects without recognizing that the need for them and the population base that pays the required taxes will be flattening out. We’re in a new era, and it’s time we started planning accordingly.

Dan Borenstein is an award-winning columnist for the Bay Area News Group and editorial page editor of the East Bay Times. 

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Affordable Care Act, Commentary, equity, insurance, Marin Voice, Medicaid, Medicare, newsletter, Opinion

Addressing racial and economic inequality in California requires policies that improve the material circumstances of those groups in our society who face the greatest hardship. One such group is women of color, and one such policy would be the introduction of universal health care coverage.

The experiences of women of color are highly racialized and tied to the institutional legacies of American slavery, Jim Crow and discriminatory social policies that limit their access to benefits and incarcerate them at higher rates.

Women of color are also subject to disparities when it comes to health care. For example, infant mortality rates are highest for African-American women across all education levels. As annual pregnancy-related deaths increase across the U.S., it is low-income, minority women who face the highest maternal mortality rates.

Racialized and gendered health inequalities require bold, creative policies designed to improve the socioeconomic status of women in relation to men. Medicaid already covers 50% of births in the U.S., but Medicare only covers people aged 65 and older, and can be expanded at the state level to ensure that all births in California are covered by health insurance.

Accordingly, Californians need a system of single-payer, universal health care coverage such as “Medicare for All.”

Countries with universal health care coverage, such as Canada and Britain, have significantly lower maternal mortality rates than the U.S. with 6.5 and 8.6 deaths per 100,000, respectively, compared to 17.4 in the U.S. Universal health care coverage would improve the health of infants and pregnant people by providing free maternity care to all Californians pre- and post-birth.

Since a large share of maternal deaths occur in the postpartum period, the Medicare-for-all system could include incentives to train and license midwives and provide home visiting programs, two evidence-supported methods to improve outcomes for the pregnant person and the infant. Home visits are essential to assess social determinants of health for families such as housing and food access, and to provide mental health support for new parents.

While the Affordable Care Act improved gendered health disparities by requiring that insurance plans include contraceptives and banning gender discrimination for insurance premiums, Medicare for all builds on the ACA and Medicaid expansion to provide quality care regardless of socioeconomic status.

Mirroring Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to provide federal universal coverage, an ideal route for California could begin with a public option. Under the Warren plan, children and families earning below 200% of the federal poverty line would be automatically enrolled in the public option with no premiums or cost-sharing, and adults over 50 could opt into Medicare, significantly reducing rates of uninsurance.

Continuing with Warren’s public option proposal, those with employer-based insurance could opt into the public plan with mandatory employer contributions and significant reductions in premiums (capped at 5% of income) and copays (capped at 10%). The public option would ensure greater bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies (helping to reduce drug prices), pay providers more to incentivize participation, and cover benefits such as prescription drugs, dental and vision.

Thanks to reduced administrative and provider costs when compared to private insurance, Medicare for all would ultimately save money. Over five years, Warren’s transition plan ensures that premiums and cost-sharing would be reduced to zero. This would create a state-level single-payer healthcare system that, like Bernie Sanders’ proposal, will be funded through wealth, capital gains and income taxes directed at the wealthiest Californians and Silicon Valley corporations. Private plans, which have been steadily increasing in cost for workers while covering fewer services, would be eliminated in favor of the state health plan.

The transition from a public option to a single-payer healthcare insurance would provide health care access for vulnerable communities, increase competition, drive costs and drug prices down, and reduce health disparities for pregnant people.

Most importantly, it would help to alleviate disparities in health care access faced by low-income women of color. As such, Medicare for all would be an important step towards reducing racial and socioeconomic inequality across California.

Indira D’Souza is the winner of the 2023 UC Davis Center for Poverty and Inequality Research Black History Month Student Essay Contest, from which this commentary was adapted. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Affordable Care Act, Commentary, equity, insurance, Marin Voice, Medicaid, newsletter, Opinion

Addressing racial and economic inequality in California requires policies that improve the material circumstances of those groups in our society who face the greatest hardship. One such group is women of color, and one such policy would be the introduction of universal health care coverage.

The experiences of women of color are highly racialized and tied to the institutional legacies of American slavery, Jim Crow and discriminatory social policies that limit their access to benefits and incarcerate them at higher rates.

Women of color are also subject to disparities when it comes to health care. For example, infant mortality rates are highest for African-American women across all education levels. As annual pregnancy-related deaths increase across the U.S., it is low-income, minority women who face the highest maternal mortality rates.

Racialized and gendered health inequalities require bold, creative policies designed to improve the socioeconomic status of women in relation to men. Medicaid already covers 50% of births in the U.S., but Medicare only covers people aged 65 and older, and can be expanded at the state level to ensure that all births in California are covered by health insurance.

Accordingly, Californians need a system of single-payer, universal health care coverage such as “Medicare for All.”

Countries with universal health care coverage, such as Canada and Britain, have significantly lower maternal mortality rates than the U.S. with 6.5 and 8.6 deaths per 100,000, respectively, compared to 17.4 in the U.S. Universal health care coverage would improve the health of infants and pregnant people by providing free maternity care to all Californians pre- and post-birth.

Since a large share of maternal deaths occur in the postpartum period, the Medicare-for-all system could include incentives to train and license midwives and provide home visiting programs, two evidence-supported methods to improve outcomes for the pregnant person and the infant. Home visits are essential to assess social determinants of health for families such as housing and food access, and to provide mental health support for new parents.

While the Affordable Care Act improved gendered health disparities by requiring that insurance plans include contraceptives and banning gender discrimination for insurance premiums, Medicare for all builds on the ACA and Medicaid expansion to provide quality care regardless of socioeconomic status.

Mirroring Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to provide federal universal coverage, an ideal route for California could begin with a public option. Under the Warren plan, children and families earning below 200% of the federal poverty line would be automatically enrolled in the public option with no premiums or cost-sharing, and adults over 50 could opt into Medicare, significantly reducing rates of uninsurance.

Continuing with Warren’s public option proposal, those with employer-based insurance could opt into the public plan with mandatory employer contributions and significant reductions in premiums (capped at 5% of income) and copays (capped at 10%). The public option would ensure greater bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies (helping to reduce drug prices), pay providers more to incentivize participation, and cover benefits such as prescription drugs, dental and vision.

Thanks to reduced administrative and provider costs when compared to private insurance, Medicare for all would ultimately save money. Over five years, Warren’s transition plan ensures that premiums and cost-sharing would be reduced to zero. This would create a state-level single-payer healthcare system that, like Bernie Sanders’ proposal, will be funded through wealth, capital gains and income taxes directed at the wealthiest Californians and Silicon Valley corporations. Private plans, which have been steadily increasing in cost for workers while covering fewer services, would be eliminated in favor of the state health plan.

The transition from a public option to a single-payer healthcare insurance would provide health care access for vulnerable communities, increase competition, drive costs and drug prices down, and reduce health disparities for pregnant people.

Most importantly, it would help to alleviate disparities in health care access faced by low-income women of color. As such, Medicare for all would be an important step towards reducing racial and socioeconomic inequality across California.

Indira D’Souza is the winner of the 2023 UC Davis Center for Poverty and Inequality Research Black History Month Student Essay Contest, from which this commentary was adapted. Distributed by CalMatters.org.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Apartheid, Berkeley, Commentary, Economy, Marin Voice, newsletter, Oil industry, Opinion, South Africa, University of California, Vietnam War

In the early 1970s, as I was leaving the Berkeley campus with my bachelor’s degree, it was fashionable for social activists to question the investment practices of major financial institutions in the names of justice, equality and fair play.

The Vietnam War was winding down. Fewer Americans were being sent over to replace dead soldiers because there were fewer to replace, in comparison to the period prior to the 1968 Tet Offensive. Nearly 60,000 American men and women died to “liberate” South Vietnam from Ho Chi Minh. In retrospect it was an idea poorly conceived and executed.

The investigation into institutional investment practices was embarrassing to many organizations, not the least of which was University of California leadership. The portfolio was found to provide tacit support for apartheid in South Africa – another poorly executed idea.

The university – formerly a bastion of free speech, justice, equality and fair play – was behaving in a manner consistent with other institutions and persons of wealth. It was making convenience of enterprises leaders knew were morally indefensible.

The absurdity of the investments was no accident. It reflected a fundamental aspect of our national character, a profound split between what we say and think versus what we do.

Some years later it was learned that the Sierra Club, a foremost nature conservation and preservation group at the time, had owned stocks and bonds in Exxon, General Motors, Tenneco and some strip mining firms that made a practice of systematic degradation of the natural environment for profit.

This crisis of character we face today is evident in the political affairs of the present. It is almost impossible to locate a person in Congress, the executive branch or in the judiciary who is not bought and paid for by some commercial or ideological interest. This is particularly true for those on the extreme fringes of both major political parties, where it is obvious that representing the rank and file of the entire constituency is way down the list of priorities.

Incumbents tend to invent ways to protect themselves and their benefit packages, so just saying “vote them all out” ignores the realities of minority rule and the challenges of protecting democracy from its dark side.

Michael Ross’ book “Overcoming the Character Deficit: How to Restore America’s Greatness One Decision at a Time” asks the rhetorical question, “what happens when we lose sight of the impact of our choices?”

In theory, everything we do every day has consequences, and the more aware of that fact we are, the better the lives we will lead. That’s the core concept of the book.

Ross writes that character is a variation on the Greek term, charakter, the literal meaning of which is “the stamp of a coin.” In this country, our coins feature the faces of people we consider some of our greatest public figures: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. For better or worse, the character of these men shaped our nation.

The penny says, “honest, perseverant and humble.” The nickel says “creative, diplomatic and competent.” The dime says “resolve, relationships and patience.” The quarter says “courage, fortitude and honor.”

These are innately powerful ideas. They have left a mark on America. Ordinary people do not often think of themselves as courageous, honorable or competent. But what if we did, and what if we demanded these standards of each other, our leaders at work, in elective office and in corporate boardrooms?

It is self-evident that there is a character deficit in our country and the world today. There are serious flaws among the institutions that we rely on to unite the various factions that exist in politics, health care, education, commerce, news media, in faith-based organizations and in the arts and entertainment.

How do we fix the damage that has been done? Ross tells us that each of us is not as important as all of us, and that we need to reintroduce character as an anchoring concept in our lives. No one person has all the answers and we probably cannot rely on many of the people who are in positions of power today. In replacing them and moving forward, we need to take action in a manner compatible with reasoned, mature, responsible decision making. That’s the American way.

Craig J. Corsini is a San Rafael resident.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Apartheid, Berkeley, Commentary, Economy, Marin Voice, newsletter, Oil industry, Opinion, South Africa, University of California, Vietnam War

In the early 1970s, as I was leaving the Berkeley campus with my bachelor’s degree, it was fashionable for social activists to question the investment practices of major financial institutions in the names of justice, equality and fair play.

The Vietnam War was winding down. Fewer Americans were being sent over to replace dead soldiers because there were fewer to replace, in comparison to the period prior to the 1968 Tet Offensive. Nearly 60,000 American men and women died to “liberate” South Vietnam from Ho Chi Minh. In retrospect it was an idea poorly conceived and executed.

The investigation into institutional investment practices was embarrassing to many organizations, not the least of which was University of California leadership. The portfolio was found to provide tacit support for apartheid in South Africa – another poorly executed idea.

The university – formerly a bastion of free speech, justice, equality and fair play – was behaving in a manner consistent with other institutions and persons of wealth. It was making convenience of enterprises leaders knew were morally indefensible.

The absurdity of the investments was no accident. It reflected a fundamental aspect of our national character, a profound split between what we say and think versus what we do.

Some years later it was learned that the Sierra Club, a foremost nature conservation and preservation group at the time, had owned stocks and bonds in Exxon, General Motors, Tenneco and some strip mining firms that made a practice of systematic degradation of the natural environment for profit.

This crisis of character we face today is evident in the political affairs of the present. It is almost impossible to locate a person in Congress, the executive branch or in the judiciary who is not bought and paid for by some commercial or ideological interest. This is particularly true for those on the extreme fringes of both major political parties, where it is obvious that representing the rank and file of the entire constituency is way down the list of priorities.

Incumbents tend to invent ways to protect themselves and their benefit packages, so just saying “vote them all out” ignores the realities of minority rule and the challenges of protecting democracy from its dark side.

Michael Ross’ book “Overcoming the Character Deficit: How to Restore America’s Greatness One Decision at a Time” asks the rhetorical question, “what happens when we lose sight of the impact of our choices?”

In theory, everything we do every day has consequences, and the more aware of that fact we are, the better the lives we will lead. That’s the core concept of the book.

Ross writes that character is a variation on the Greek term, charakter, the literal meaning of which is “the stamp of a coin.” In this country, our coins feature the faces of people we consider some of our greatest public figures: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. For better or worse, the character of these men shaped our nation.

The penny says, “honest, perseverant and humble.” The nickel says “creative, diplomatic and competent.” The dime says “resolve, relationships and patience.” The quarter says “courage, fortitude and honor.”

These are innately powerful ideas. They have left a mark on America. Ordinary people do not often think of themselves as courageous, honorable or competent. But what if we did, and what if we demanded these standards of each other, our leaders at work, in elective office and in corporate boardrooms?

It is self-evident that there is a character deficit in our country and the world today. There are serious flaws among the institutions that we rely on to unite the various factions that exist in politics, health care, education, commerce, news media, in faith-based organizations and in the arts and entertainment.

How do we fix the damage that has been done? Ross tells us that each of us is not as important as all of us, and that we need to reintroduce character as an anchoring concept in our lives. No one person has all the answers and we probably cannot rely on many of the people who are in positions of power today. In replacing them and moving forward, we need to take action in a manner compatible with reasoned, mature, responsible decision making. That’s the American way.

Craig J. Corsini is a San Rafael resident.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal

By:
On:
In: Commentary, Human rights, Jimmy Carter, Marin Voice, newsletter, Opinion, Politics

When I first joined the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service, I was optimistic about the positive role the United States played in the world. By the time I left not quite a decade later, I was haunted by how dangerous our shortsighted foreign policy can be.

What worried me most was how casual the U.S. government was about arming, training, and resourcing dictators, tyrants and local thugs all over the world. We typically justified this in the name of stability or maintaining influence, but pursued it with shockingly little accountability for the negative consequences.

I didn’t understand how we could reconcile the human rights values we claimed to champion with the human rights offenders we championed too. After I walked away from my career, I wanted to know more.

I was a history major with a law degree. I hadn’t studied international relations, so on-the-job training was my foreign affairs education. Freed up from the daily rigor of diplomatic work on the front lines, I pored through books and academic articles on what drives what we do around the world.

I was shocked to learn that human rights as an element of U.S. foreign policy was barely older than I was.

President Jimmy Carter first formalized human rights in our foreign policy in 1977. Prior to that, our government didn’t even pretend to factor it in. Though Carter’s foreign policy will be remembered more for the disasters of the Iran hostage situation and oil crisis, it was his approach to human rights that left a truly lasting mark.

I’ve thought a lot about that legacy since Carter entered hospice care. I’ve also thought about how much better off we would be if that legacy had gained more traction.

Carter believed it was not only our duty to live up to these principles at home and overseas but that it was good policy too, serving our own interests. He understood that providing political, economic and military support to governments that abused their people might stabilize specific regimes in the short term but would ultimately foster insurgencies and violence, creating bad outcomes in the long run. Rather than creating reliable security or trade partners, it would embolden authoritarian regimes to act ever worse.

Carter sought to institutionalize human rights within our foreign policy decision-making structures, so that it would not only inform our foreign activities but constrain them as well.

Specifically, his administration implemented policies to link U.S. government decisions over foreign assistance to the human rights records of target countries. He established a Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the State Department, headed by an assistant secretary. The bureau today prepares human rights reports annually for every country to help inform our foreign policy decisions and human rights messaging to the world.

This marked a real shift. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. government hadn’t hesitated to partner with bad actors as long as they sided with us against the Soviet Union. Under the national security advisement of Henry Kissinger, we not only turned a blind eye to allies’ violent abuses, but at times even encouraged them.

Carter offered a foreign policy that looked less awful at home and to the outside world, and Americans were ready for that change.

But that framework only took us so far. When Carter was soundly defeated and Ronald Reagan took the helm, he made quick work of undermining the institutional role of human rights. He didn’t succeed entirely. When he tried to appoint a critic of the human rights bureau’s very existence to head it up, Congress rejected the nomination.

But Reagan’s influence ensured our human rights approach proceeded a la carte — using it as a cudgel against adversaries when it suited us and ignoring it otherwise.

Carter’s imprint on our foreign policy remains. The U.S. government must still consider the implications our foreign policy has on human rights. In practice, those concerns are routinely cast aside, but someone still asks the question.

If human rights records had the clout that Carter intended, reports like these would have shaped our foreign policy instead, ensuring that those who foster injustice and violence would not remain beneficiaries of U.S. support. The infrastructure for that to happen is in place, just waiting for the next Jimmy Carter to revitalize it and make human rights a cornerstone of American foreign policy again.

Elizabeth Shackelford was a U.S. diplomat. This originally appeared in the the Chicago Tribune. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

As Reported by Marin Independent Journal