Radically Simple Ways to Make America
Fairer, and to Fix Both Social Security
and Health Care So We Can Move On to
Address Much Bigger Issues
An Earth Manifesto publication by Dr. Tiffany B. Twain
“I believe strongly and passionately that every
American has a right to good health care that is effective, accessible and
affordable, that serves you from infancy through old age, that allows you to go
to practitioners and facilities of your choosing, and that offers a broad range
of therapeutic options. Your
health-care system should also help you stay in optimum health, not just take
care of you when you are sick or injured.
You should expect and demand this of your country, whether you are rich
or poor and whatever the circumstances in which you live. A free democratic society must guarantee basic health care to its
citizens -- all of them -- just as it guarantees them basic security and
safety. It is in society’s interest to
do so: the healthier our population,
the stronger and more productive we will be as a nation.”
Dr. Andrew Weil in Why Our Health Matters
The Current State
of Affairs: A Prelude to Proposed Solutions
solutions are proposed in this essay to the challenges posed by our medical
care systems and our seriously frayed social security safety net and the
dangerously glaring and widening inequities in our society in recent decades.
where we stand. Since 9/11, we have fought the two longest wars in our
country’s history. We are still
perilously close to the worst economic cataclysm since the severe Depression of
the 1930s. Our representatives are
fighting tooth and nail with deafening sound and fury over issues that divert
our attention from initiatives that would help ensure greater democratic
fairness, broader prosperity, and better prospects for peaceable coexistence
and sustainable living.
energies, resources and financing are being diverted from the most crucial
problems of the next 50 years. These
top priority considerations should be to move rapidly toward renewable and
sustainable energy sources and adequate supplies of food and fresh water; a fairer compromise in the rich/poor
divide; fewer trillions of dollars
spent on a wide-ranging “war on terror” and more on things like improved
infrastructure, universal health care and the amelioration of extreme
poverty; and the prevention of social
disintegration, ecological collapse and wars.
We are in a “bumpy plateau” period near the peak of world oil
production, and a slow-motion global ecological cataclysm is unfolding. Ominous disruptions in normal weather
patterns are occurring, and various species of plants and animals are being
forebodingly driven to extinction at an accelerating rate. This is causing the rich and extraordinary
diversity of life on our providential home planet to be diminished.
To begin to deal
with these overarching challenges, we need to solve basic problems related to
the financing of our civilization. We
must make people more secure with a sustainable system of Social Security for
those who have worked throughout their lives and then retired. And a better healthcare plan is also needed
for all citizens.
concept of smarter-for-everyone bigger investments in social insurance and the
general welfare of the American people is so truly conservative AND liberal
that it is incredible that it does not receive overwhelming support, even in
our corrupted political duopoly system.
It is folly to increase the fortunes of the well to do at the direct
expense of making the misfortunes of the vast majority of Americans
One inextricably true fact is that it is
contrary to national security to ratchet up the insecurity of the masses. National policies that make the people more
insecure merely to enrich the fortunate few are counterproductive, and they
violate the security and liberties of the vast majority of people by undermining
their general well-being.
It is time for us
to begin honestly acting to
improve and strengthen our democratic republic, so we should accomplish these
two things in a providential and affordable manner. And simultaneously, we
should make a sustained commitment to crucially important priorities for the
long run by establishing a Bill of Rights for Future Generations.
A Proposed Fix to
the Social Security System
Our leaders are
not honest with us about Social Security, and we are not honest with ourselves. Social Security is not a fiscally sound
retirement plan. It is a Ponzi-like
wealth transfer scheme. Today, the
demographics of our aging population are finally catching up with this
essentially gimmicky plan. The number
of retired people is growing rapidly, relative to the number of working people
who are paying into the system. For the
first time ever, Social Security payouts in 2010 exceeded the amount of payroll
taxes paid into the system.
From now on, the
entire Social Security system will become increasingly insecure and an
increasingly big burden on taxpayers, unless sensible and fair-minded reforms
To create a
better system, we should recognize that our Social Security system should be
restructured to be a true retirement income insurance system.
Aha! An epiphany!! Honest understanding leads to a sensible and propitious solution
to this dilemma. Social Security is a
public-run insurance scheme, folks. In
almost all other insurance plans, a large pool of people pay into a plan, and a
much smaller subset of people receive payments -- those whose circumstances
necessitate help. This is true of
automobile insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, earthquake insurance,
and most of the 85 “types of insurance” listed in Wikipedia. A publicly-run insurance system,
parenthetically, has similar bureaucratic overhead costs as private insurance
plans, except for some economies of scale and the distinct advantage of not
having a significant and ever-expanding slice being allocated for profit every
year to reward investors and speculators.
of the fact that Social Security should actually be an insurance plan are
surprising. We simply should not pay
Social Security to EVERY retired worker.
We should pay only the people who need the retirement income to live an
adequately comfortable life after they have reached a reasonable retirement
The meaning of
this is clear: Social Security should
be “means tested”. No payments should
be given to any retired person who has an annual income exceeding an agreed
amount. Payments of Social Security
funds should be phased out for high-income retirees. For instance, retirees with an annual income over $100,000 should
get only 50% of the amount they currently would receive, and retirees with an
annual income over $250,000 should get none at all. This change in payouts could easily be calibrated to make the
Social Security Insurance Plan indefinitely sustainable. This is a much better idea than allowing the
system to slowly devolve into insolvency.
laissez-faire economic fundamentalists still fume at Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
New Deal reforms, and they continue to try to dismantle them. We need to be honest with ourselves in
recognizing that these reforms were made necessary by one of capitalism’s worst
failures in history, so far: the Great
Security plan was the centerpiece of the New Deal. It was designed to remedy an underlying issue in the hard-fought
struggle between capital and labor, that epic sustained conflict between the
prerogatives of those who have capital and the lives and well-being of
Employers and employees
often have a contentious relationship.
All too many employers are not overly committed to the well-being of
their employees, and they terminate employees when business cycles result in
faltering revenues. Employers want the
freedom to dump employees at will, and to avoid as many costs associated with
unemployment or employee healthcare or retirement as they can. What they want, and what should be, need not
be identical in our democracy. Maybe a social security safety net should be
regarded as a human right, and the cost of it should be fairly included in the
price of every good and service. That
is one of the theories behind the requirement that employers must contribute a
total of 6.45% of all employee pay to match employee withholdings to help
finance Social Security and Medicare programs.
a minute, Tiffany”, you may be thinking.
“There are plenty of laws that protect workers, and there are many
programs like unemployment insurance, disability insurance, the COBRA health
insurance continuation law, and Social Security and Medicare.” And you’d be right. There are worker protections. And these protections were by-and-large
established because workers used collective bargaining to get them, and because
capitalist boom-and-bust cycles have periodically wrought terrible hardships on
working people. For these reasons,
employers, shareholders and dominatingly influential rich people have
occasionally been forced to a new and somewhat better deal for workers in order
to help insure the revivals and continuation of their advantages, and
ultimately to save their necks.
do conservatives always seem to be on the side of criticizing these worker
protections, and of wanting to gut them and eliminate regulations and slash
spending on social programs and kill unions?
I believe they are on the wrong side of history and morality in these
One of the worst
shortcomings of the capitalist system is the boom-and-bust nature of this
sink-or-swim system. This is painfully
obvious today in the aftermath of the severe credit crisis of late 2008 and the
economic turmoil since then. Also, the
capitalist system, as a part of society, is a part of the ‘social contract’ in
which there is a significant need to protect vulnerable folks from the
hardships of cyclical economic hard times.
Social Security was designed to fairly address this need for older
people when they could no longer work.
the plan’s design has required serious tweaking in the intervening 75 years
since its creation, and NOW the Ponzi-scheme nature of its generous-to-all
payments has crashed up against the fiscal reality that it is not a sustainable
plan, as currently constituted.
like George W. Bush have been enlisted by shrewd Wall Street types who see big
profits in a potential new scam to “privatize” Social Security. They thus advocate allowing workers to
invest the money they pay into the system into personal accounts. This disingenuous proposal would require
borrowing trillions of dollars to pretend that payroll taxes exist in a
protected fund rather than having been paid out already in an accounting
flim-flam wealth transfer scheme that has always financed direct payouts to
current retirees from payroll taxes paid by people currently working.
Once we are
honest with ourselves and comprehend that Social Security is really an old age
income insurance plan, and definitely NOT a fully-funded retirement plan, then
the needed solution becomes an obvious and fair one, and privatization becomes
a clearly deceptive and laughably absurd idea.
Tackling the Challenge of High Medicare Costs
Let’s not stop with Social Security.
Unfunded Medicare liabilities are much larger than the obligations for
Social Security, so this problem cries out even more loudly for sensible
reform. Since this challenge is bigger,
it will require more radical changes than the one adduced above for Social
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in
health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
--- Martin Luther King, Jr.
To begin, let us
recognize how bizarre our U.S. healthcare system is. Health insurance has somehow evolved to be a benefit of
employment. This to a big extent leaves
out large segments of society like many young people, unemployed people,
disabled people, and the mentally ill.
So we patched together a Medicare system of relatively inexpensive
health insurance and care for people over 65, plus Medicaid for poor people,
plus “SCHIP” for eligible children (thanks to Hillary Clinton), and emergency
room care for the millions of people who cannot afford, or do not want to pay,
the high costs of medical insurance.
allow a vast apparatus of red-tape bureaucracy and profiteering to affect the
health insurance industry with monopoly practices that have been enabled by the
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which exempted insurance companies from antitrust laws. Medical insurance companies routinely deny
coverage to many people and refuse to cover people with “pre-existing conditions”.
They neglect preventative health measures and the value of good
nutrition, and allow drug makers and surgeons to sell us costly remedies to
The cost of
emergency room healthcare for the tens of millions of uninsured Americans is
essentially being borne by everyone who has insurance, because these expenses
end up in higher costs being assessed for medical services for those that have
insurance. In effect, we are forcing
the general public to pay for the healthcare of the uninsured. This is an oddly de facto default form of
This status quo
is highly unfair to everyone with insurance.
The lack of affordable healthcare is very unfair to those without it.
Care Act enacted by Congress in March 2010 tried to balance this inequity by
requiring all uninsured Americans to buy insurance so that the cost will be
spread more widely. Under this plan,
those who cannot afford to buy insurance will receive subsidies to cover the
cost. These provisions are not ideal, but
they are a historic good start, and we should strive to dramatically improve
The best plan would be to create universal health coverage by
implementing a single-payer plan, a kind of Medicare for all. Now, admittedly, a public
insurance option would be subject to risks that private interests will drive up
prices because of the corrupting influence on the system of lobbyists, as has
happened with the
Republican-sponsored Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003, which prohibited
negotiations of drug prices and impeded the use of less expensive generic drugs
at the direct expense of taxpayers. But
this just means that we should create a stronger and smarter plan, not that we
should let the status quo of the current system prevail, or do as Republicans
advocate and terminate Obamacare and throw 20 million Americans back to being
Senator Charles Grassley is saying today that the Part D Prescription Drug
program should be "free from exploitation", so this hyper-partisan
and ideologically committed politician seems to have had his echo chamber rung
at revelations that pharmaceutical companies have increased prices on coverage
for “catastrophic” prescription drugs
by 85 percent in the past three years.
Thus, “A safeguard for Medicare beneficiaries has become a way for
drugmakers to get paid billions of dollars for pricey medications at taxpayer
expense. … The cost of Medicare’s “catastrophic” prescription coverage jumped
by 85 percent in three years, from $27.7 billion in 2013 to $51.3 billion in
market can bear, it seems, and when lobbyists have corrupted our government
decision-making, the market is able to bear huge increases that can really
improve bottom line profits for drug companies, but inimically at the direct
expense of taxpayers.
But I digress. Let’s be honest.
Every person needs health care during his or her lives to one degree or
another, and we collectively need healthcare for everyone. So here is a proposal: let’s entirely divorce healthcare from
employment. Presto! No more “job-killing” effects of
healthcare! Let us design the fairest
possible method of financing this plan, and avoid foisting the cost onto future
generations. Then, let’s employ tip-top
management ideas to control costs. Further,
let’s utilize really effective means of making people healthier by providing
powerful incentives to foster good health and prevent poor nutrition, obesity
initiative would be radical. And yes,
it would kill some jobs, like those in the vast medical insurance
bureaucracy, because health insurance as a profit-making enterprise would be
eliminated. Being a fair-minded gal, I
would strongly support a “golden parachute” for all of the employees of these
companies who are not incorporated into the new system; give them all one full year’s pay, plus
assistance in finding other jobs.
It is estimated
that the cost of unnecessary medical procedures, bureaucracy, Medicare fraud
and the profits made in the health insurance industry are about one-third of
total annual health care expenditures in the U.S. Americans spend well about $3 trillion per year on health care,
so this one-third represents about $1 trillion each year. This could finance some very generous
severance pay for people in the industry, and thereafter, large savings will be
available to help pay some of the costs of a new single-payer health insurance
and care plan.
be provided to all people at fair rates.
Subsidies for the indigent should be paid for from a giant pool of money
accumulated according to the specific design of this new plan’s financing. At the very least, healthcare should be
treated like an electric utility or a water district, i.e. a provider of
essential goods. Thus, it should be regulated
to ensure fair service and to prevent outsized profit-making and huge
Are there any good alternative ideas about how
healthcare should be financed? Yes, and here is one.
about a concept known as Right Understanding.
When we rightly understand an issue, this illumination provides
a powerfully positive perspective on the proper direction required to
intelligently solve associated dilemmas. Robert Reich provides an
excellent idea in Supercapitalism:
Since consumers want low prices for the goods they buy, and investors want high
returns on their investments, we sacrifice good citizen goals to the more
selfish and shortsighted goals of consumers and investors. To achieve
consumer and investor goals, we allow corporations to take short-cuts that harm
the potential for achieving good citizen goals. Big businesses do this by externalizing many costs upon society
instead of including them in prices of goods and services, or in the “basis
cost” of investments.
Manifesto essay The Common Good, Properly
Understood contains an expansive idea of the particulars of Good Citizen
Goals, which are crucial to a fair quality of life. To achieve these important goals, consumers should be sensibly
assessed slightly higher prices, and investors should be required to pay a
reasonable fee or receive a lower share of corporate profits or capital gains.
everyone is a Good Citizen Goal. To finance it, 50% of the cost could be
assessed in the prices of all goods and services, which will be paid for by
consumers, and 50% could be assessed to investors in the form of fees on
financial transactions or taxes on corporate profits and dividends and capital
gains. Businesses should be happy with
this plan, for they will be relieved of having to deal with health care
bureaucracy or the high costs associated with health insurance for their
employees. These costs have been
increasing much faster than the rate of inflation for many years.
would indeed be radical, but they would be a better plan than sticking our
heads in the sand and denying the enormous unfunded liabilities and extreme
inequities involved in our current checkerboard of dysfunctional private and
public healthcare insurance plans.
There is a very
good reason we need to think so radically outside the box. It would be marvelous to suppose that the
twenty-first century will be one of peace and prosperity. But the era has begun rather inauspiciously
with costly military occupations of Middle Eastern nations, and with economic
turmoil and severe hard times and extreme strife, especially in Muslim
countries. What is much more ominously
likely is that this century will actually be one of transformative crises, of
Peak Oil and decline, of resources shortages, of social unrest, of wide-ranging
conflicts, of increasing natural and man-made disasters, of severe economic
maladies, of desperately barbaric terrorist attacks, and even of an increasing
potential for ecological collapse.
To position our
country more securely, we can no longer afford to run enormous budget deficits
every year to perpetuate a dysfunctional status quo. It would be far more fiscally responsible to do the opposite, and
create a “rainy day fund” so that we are better prepared for adverse
developments and urgent funding needs.
tuition tells me that there is good cause for hope that We the People will be able to unite to move in the direction of
fairer societies. Much larger issues
loom on the horizon, after all, and we need to face them together, for united
we can stand, while divided we will surely stumble. The Pyrrhic victories of the privileged in securing historically
low tax rates for themselves are proving to be a pathetic impediment for us in
trying to successfully deal with the epic challenges to come.
naturally stronger together, and this is not just a simplistic slogan. Our Founders saw it as an enduring truth that we are
stronger together, and it must become a guiding principle. As Hillary Clinton stated in her DNC
Acceptance Speech, we
need to avoid playing on people’s fears, and instead focus on the strengths of
America that are found in our “diverse and dynamic population, tolerant and
generous young people, and enduring values of freedom, justice and
Perspectives of Dr. Andrew Weil
Dr. Andrew Weil
indicates in his compelling book Why Our
Health Matters that we do not actually have a “health-care” system at
all. “Instead, we have a disease
management system that is horribly dysfunctional and getting more so every
day. Our health is deteriorating, and
we have the highest percentage of uninsured citizens of any democratic
society; no other nation comes close.” … “We spend more per capita on health care
than any other nation in the world -- by a long shot. Yet, by virtually every measure of health outcomes, including
longevity, infant mortality, fitness, and rates of chronic diseases, we are at
or near the bottom compared to other developed countries. We are paying more and more, and have less
and less to show for it. We are also
paying more and more for health insurance plans that cover less and less.”
Dr. Weil points
out what many people are acutely aware of: “that the costs of medical care have
spiraled out of control, rising at such an accelerating rate that they have
become a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.” He says that the costs of drugs, surgery and conventional medical
treatments are much higher than costs of disease prevention and the promotion
of good health. It would be a better
idea for us to create incentives and disincentives that encourage people to
pursue healthier lifestyles and reduce risks of chronic diseases, which are
responsible for about 75% of medical costs.
debacle of our healthcare system is a sad reflection on the way our economic
and political system works. It is
preposterous to have such high costs for health insurance and such rapid cost
increases for medical insurance and health care. It is stupid to allow high costs for administrative red tape and
bureaucratic treatment denials and preexisting condition exclusions. And it
seems unconscionable to allow extreme inequities like those involved with
having so many millions of people without medical insurance using emergency
rooms for their primary medical care.
categories of people who really benefit under the current system are those who
are old enough to qualify for Medicare, because they get good care at somewhat
low prices. This is proving to be a
completely unsustainable state of affairs as the American population gets
older, in aggregate, and as a higher percentage of Americans reach the age of
65. The costs for this medical care for
old people are an enormous obligation that is being foisted upon taxpayers and
people in future generations who will be liable for the borrowings the federal
government makes to finance unprecedented levels of national debt.
reform the healthcare system, like efforts to reform the political system, are
being met with an aggressive phalanx of highly motivated lobbyists for
entrenched interests. These special
interest groups defend their turf and block efforts to change these systems in
ways consistent with the greater good.
encapsulate the extent of numerous disastrous outcomes caused by
dysfunctionality in our healthcare system.
Dr. Weil insightfully diagnoses the complex problems of our healthcare
system in Why Our Health Matters, and
he intelligently points the way to needed reforms.
Dr. Weil has
worked for three decades to promote health and to encourage greater
self-reliance and self-responsibility for well-being. He advocates that doctors be trained in “integrative medicine”,
which values low-tech methods like dietary change, good nutrition, regular
exercise, breath control, and stress management. He recommends these forms of preventative care as better
alternatives than outrageously-priced and deeply-problematic pharmaceutical
sensibly suggests that the U.S. should create a National Institute for Health
and Healing to steer our nation in healthier directions and help combat an
epidemic of childhood obesity. Let’s do
Dr. Weil also notes that the five biggest drug
companies in the U.S. had a total of $222 billion in sales in the year
2005. Of this, they spent $32 billion
on Research and Development of new drugs, but an astonishing $71 billion on
marketing and promotion of drugs. It is
ridiculous to allow these companies to advertise prescription drugs direct to
consumers to increase demand for products that have a long list of dangerous
side effects. Instead of advertising
that leads to costly and excessive usages of drugs, we should be educating
people about preventative medicine and alternatives to drugs.
all is said and done, the thing that matters most to each of us is our physical
and mental health. There is no question
but that integrative education and increased awareness of the impacts of our
choices could easily improve our overall health. We should immediately begin to institute effective incentives and
disincentives to make healthy food less expensive and to make unhealthy fast
foods and processed food products more expensive.
Eminently Sensible and Fair Tax Proposal
protected retired people from destitution with a re-envisioned Social Security
plan, and having remedied our national healthcare dilemma, we need to take
steps to protect the other large subset of highly vulnerable people in our
society: all young adults and children
under the age of 18 who do not have the right to vote. Our current shortsighted policies disregard
the risks to them, and to those to be born in the future. Extreme insecurity
lurks for these vulnerable citizens and citizens-to-be. To protect them, the commitments involved in
a proposed Bill of Rights for Future Generations must be championed!
True tax reform
is needed to improve fairness in our society, and to raise more revenue to
provide financing for infrastructure investments, a boost in U.S.
competitiveness, and the protection of the health of Earth’s ecosystems. We also need to make our energy regime
cleaner and move toward independence from polluting fossil fuels, and we should
take bold steps to make a necessary transition to a greener and more
A good proposal has been made in One
Dozen Big Initiatives to Positively Transform Our Societies that
would create a dramatically fairer tax system. The
plan essentially involves revising the federal tax system for all
income, capital gains, and inheritances to make them more steeply
graduated. It is practically criminal
to delay these reforms any longer!
Theodore Roosevelt gave a remarkable speech more
than 100 years ago in which he indicated a strong belief in “a graduated
inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and
increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." There are many good arguments for
inheritance taxes on large fortunes.
These understandings should be heeded, rather than allowing the richest
1% of Americans to abuse their power by getting politicians to slash taxes paid
on high levels of their kids’ inheritances.
Perversely, a top priority of Congressional Republicans in April 2015
was to eliminate inheritance taxes entirely to benefit the heirs of the wealthiest
.2% of Americans.
The light of the
“shining city on the hill” must not be snuffed out. “The eyes of all people are upon us”, the Puritan John Winthrop
stated in 1630 when he coined the evocative phrase, “City upon a Hill”. Ironically, Ronald Reagan used this
religious idea to inspire hope and public support for his vision, and then he
proceeded to ram through highly inegalitarian policies that contrasted starkly
with the liberal ideas John Winthrop had conveyed.
would be well advised to find reasonable ways of reconciling rosily
Pollyannaish views with more sober-minded ones. Then we should act in fair ways to solve the real problems we
face. Critical thinking and honorable
concern for the greater good are needed.
Honesty is also needed, rather than dishonesty, deception, denial, and
disseminated misinformation. We should
support what is best for the vast majority of human beings, and for future
generations, and for life on Earth.
YES for almost every plan that lobbyists served up for six years from 2001 to
2006, and then they have voted NO for almost every plan the other Party’s
lobbyists came up with since then.
Politics as usual must change.
Unfortunately, few signs of this are evident, especially with the
takeover of the Republican Party by D.J. Trump, whose ascendancy in the
Republican primaries was achieved by Trump exploiting people’s fears and
insecurities and promoting hatred and division.
We need to
overcome the dishonesty in Congress, which under George W. Bush named a law
that helped logging companies clear-cut forests the “Healthy Forests
Initiative”, and a law that helped giant corporations continue to spew air
pollution into the atmosphere the “Clear Skies Act”. These metaphors were designed to be deceptive for marketing
purposes, but at least they were positive in tone. What are we to think of “truth in labeling” now, with things like
the negative title of a “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” that
the Republican majority in the House of Representatives passed in January
2010? Or the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act, or the Repealing Ineffective
and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act, or the Reducing Barack
Obama's Unsustainable Deficit Act?
The wise and
enviably humorous Buddhist-leaning Wes ‘Scoop’ Nisker expresses the
impressionable opinion in Crazy Wisdom
Saves the World Again that what we really need, instead of 16 costly
“intelligence agencies”, is a new balance of powers to be provided by a
Department of Wisdom, “a government agency staffed by philosophers,
anthropologists, historians, some jesters, and even a few mystics: people who see the world in a different way
from economists, generals and senators.”
The possession of
great wealth is accompanied by a serious moral responsibility. Those who have Big Money must stop making
such stubborn and domineering efforts to protect their privileges and evade
their responsibilities. For surely
there are some profound truths contained in Mark Twain’s words when he wrote, “The lack of money is the root of all evil.” And those truths relate to another socioeconomic truth: We must
sow greater social justice to
harvest healthier, happier and more
secure societies. And to Martin Luther King’s
observation, “Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.”
should instead contribute to helping solve the daunting obstacles faced by the
more than 7 billion people alive on Earth today. And they should help make sure that the legacy we leave to the
estimated 14 billion people likely to be born in the next 100 years is not a
legacy of severe material and fiscal austerity.
“Cheer up, things
could be worse!”, a good old gal once told my father. “So I cheered up,” he said, “and, sure enough, things got worse!” Ha!
C’est la vie!! Let’s be
cheerful, and at the same time resolute, in making a positive difference in the
Dr. Tiffany B. Twain
Latest update, August 1, 2016
Founder, the Earth Manifesto