Debt Limit Limited

In my last posting to this blog (“Ideology Versus Governing”), just before the scheduled vote to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, I wrote about what I felt was the larger issue emerging from this debate.  Namely, the emergence of what I called “legislative terrorists,” willing to take one of our greatest possessions – “the full faith and credit of the United States” –  and hold it hostage to a purely political agenda.  It is a “My way or else, at any price” mentality that has no place in this heterogeneous multi-cultural environment that is America.  So I wrote that the need to say “No” to that extremism was the greater crisis to be dealt with.

Unsurprisingly, Congress and the President chose to ignore my earnest plea.  And so what we had on August 2^nd was one of the ugliest displays of bad government in America not seen in a very long time.  And it resulted in no real substantive solution to debt and economic growth.  But it did establish some very bad precedences we will have to live with for awhile.  So did anyone come out of this mess a winner?

Certainly not Speaker John Boehner, a generally decent fellow who was shown to be an emperor with no clothes.  His openness to negotiate a responsible, big-picture substantive solution to our needs was shut down by a controlling portion of his own party.  He could not lead his group, only run faster in the front to avoid being run over by his party.  And he stands without a loyal support team, notably Majority Leader Eric Cantor who stands at his back – with a knife marked “Future Speaker” poised just inches from Boehner’s back.  Sam Rayburn or Tip O’Neil he ain’t.

Certainly not President Barack Obama.  He probably got the biggest individual win – the debt ceiling was raised as he wanted, and there will be no more discussion / maneuvering about the debt limit until (thankfully) after the 2012 election.  We are spared at least one more grandstanding episode for awhile.  But after weeks of saying “Don’t call my bluff, Eric,” that is exactly what Eric et al did; the perception deepens that when pressed, the President will cave in on his principles.  When Obama first came into office, much ado was made about his reading of Doris Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals,” the tale of Lincoln’s creative maneuvering  of his political rivals to pursue his leadership through the Civil War.  I would suggest that on his current vacation Obama switch his reading to biographies of Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson – two presidents who were not afraid of presidential power and used it to move their agenda through hostile Congresses.  Strong leadership (versus headstrong leadership) is needed.

Certainly not Congress.  Its approval rating is 15% (a nicer way of saying “85% negative”).  And for the first time I can remember, over 2/3rds of Americans in a recent poll said that their own Congresspersons should not be reelected.  That is pretty astounding, considering that most of the time Americans feel that “my Representative / Senator is OK, it is yours that is the problem!”  The capstone proof of this Congress’s inability to govern was its decision to create a 12-member “Super Congress,” found nowhere in our Constitution.  The message is, “We cannot agree on how to govern, so let’s absolve ourselves of the responsibility and create another polarized committee who will mimic our disagreements, and we can blame them for Paralysis – Round 2.”  Just before Thanksgiving, we will be able to watch the whole dysfunction replay again.

Certainly not Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  These two Senate leaders were essentially pushed to the sidelines, while all attention was on the House Republicans and President Obama.  In the end, it was their silly “solution” to create the Super Congress which broke the stalemate but guaranteed us the upcoming “Government Fiasco – The Sequel.”  (Invisible) House Minority Leader (and a former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi can probably share a seat with them in the back of the movie house to watch this movie sequel play out.

Certainly not the Tea Party, although some commentators would have us believe that they were the big winners.  But they were not.  A number of them have set themselves up for defeat in the 2012 election by Republican rivals who will accuse them of underachieving and not delivering.  Or by a Democrat who will replay these Tea Party speeches against a backdrop of people without jobs, without teachers for their children, or adequate police and firefighters to protect them.  (Then again, Democrats have never shown much skill in capitalizing on campaign opportunities handed to them.)  But their biggest failure is how they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory – the potential offered for a $4 trillion cut in expenditures in exchange for some selective tax increases on the 2% wealthy class.  It is a failure to accept that more revenues, and the closing of discriminatory tax laws favoring “friends of Congress,” are absolutely necessary along with tax cuts to bring fiscal sanity to this country.  They gave up a very big prize because it was not pure enough.  But Americans never like purists for long.  Barry Goldwater, a highly principled man, said that he would “rather be Right than President.”  Well, he never became a President.  The Tea Party is likely to get its similar wish.

Certainly not We the American People.  There are no jobs in this debt ceiling bill.  There is no badly needed investment in places where we know it is needed.  There was no democratic process shown in the passing of this debt ceiling bill.  The people who claimed to be all about saving our economy, and that defaulting on the debt limit didn’t matter, sent the stock market down 1500 points within two weeks of passing their plan of salvation.  We were taken to the precipice.  And then we jumped.

Thanks, but no thanks to all involved.  This cast of characters is now on August recess.  We can only hope that they extend that recess as long as possible, and stay the hell away from Washington.  Because if your mantra is that “government is the problem,” and this is your idea of “helping us,” then it shows that you are the government and you are clearly the problem.  So stay away and quit making our lives worse.

We still have a new budget to pass for 2011-2012; we still have a Super Congress to bicker and non-legislate.  It is all going to look very similar to this August, making it a tough fall season for all news watchers.  My last posting on my Our Spiritual Way blog was about the virtue of Patience.  It is a virtue that is being severely tested right now in all of us.

Ideology Versus Governing

Dear President Obama:

For the last two months, We the People have watched – in some horror – the full and true picture of how our elected government is operating today.  Past legislative battles have been but a pale preview of the political warfare now occurring over raising the debt limit.  And We the People are not at all happy with what we see.

There is no question that We the People have widely different views about the proper role of government – federal, state and local – in our economic, religious and personal lives.  Nor is there a question that many of us hold those views with strong passion.  But there is no question that the greatness of America has always been its ability to transcend those differences, moderate our extremes, and ultimately do the right thing for the greatest good.  It is only when we have failed to see and strive for that bigger view that We the People have collectively come up short in the great promise that is America.

We now have bills to pay for monies already spent based on previous commitments of Congress-persons and Presidents.  In hindsight, some of those bills may have been good or bad decisions, but they are decisions long sense made.  Now we have to live with them responsibly.  Like any corporate chief or small business owner, when expected revenues do not work out, one needs to borrow to get through today while concurrently making smart plans about tomorrow.  In such times, it is vital to keep one’s credit worthiness whole, and to demonstrate an unflinching commitment to paying one’s obligations.  Yet our current debt is not just about the credit worthiness of the federal government; it is more importantly about affirming the “full faith, credit and backing” of We the People.  It is all pretty simple and basic stuff.

Yet instead of dealing honestly and efficiently with this credit management need, our government has instead decided to hold this backbone of our economic stability hostage to a wide-ranging ideological war of every conceivable pet philosophy.  The supposed debt “debate” in fact has little to do with the debt limit.  All of the current arguments instead reflect classic disagreements over the size and role of government, how it should be paid for, and by whom.  These are heated arguments on both sides that have been with us unsettled since our Constitution was first written.

But where in the past these arguments ebbed and flowed and ultimately found resolution in the middle (like the writing of our Constitution itself), this time we are watching acts of legislative terrorism taking place.  (I realize that this risks sounding as its own inflammatory rhetoric, but if it looks, quacks, and waddles like a duck, there is a high probability it is a duck!)  Legislative terrorists have sized a valuable hostage (the debt limit requirement), issued their list of “non-negotiable demands” (strictly cutting spending of their own unilateral determination without new revenues), and threatened to kill the hostage if these demands are not met without compromise (a never-before, constitutionally prohibited default on our debts).  It is a classic fighting tactic of the political revolutionary – hostage-taking, ransom and killing – a tactic that all governmental leaders everywhere have always been quick to condemn.

Mere days before our deadline for paying the ransom, we are still unclear about the potential outcome.  Yet the damage to our credit standing and economic well-being is already occurring simply by the threat of a default.  Politicians who have been talking big about being committed to job creation and economic growth are in fact taking steps towards destroying any chance for an economic turnaround.  Playing “chicken” with our country’s reputation and greatness for the pure sake of ideological combat is not responsible governing, it is simply power exercised for the aggrandizement of one’s personal ego, not for our national well-being.  We the People clearly see the difference.

So what to do?  There are times when headstrong children, employees, and friends are hell-bent to follow a course without regard for the larger consequences.  Consequences upon them as well as others.  As parents, supervisors and concerned friends, we must choose between trying to forcibly stop them, or letting them go forward so that they can learn needed lessons from the disaster of their own experience.  This is one of those times.

As President, I know that your sense of overriding obligation is to protect us from our worst enemies, whether enemies within or without.  Therefore I know your instinct will be to protect our credit rating from our self-inflicted wound and accept whatever ransom demand is made.  But if you do, you will only validate the legislative terror tactics now being employed.  You will confirm that they in fact work.  And so we will see these tactics constantly replayed on every issue over the next two years – the politics of brinksmanship.  It will repeat again when we try to create a budget for FY 2012 that starts TWO MONTHS from now; have yet another debt limit battle in six months (and again six months after that?); and when we start working on the 2013 budget that takes effect in October 1, 2012 – just before the next election.

Standard policy for all law enforcement agencies is to never accede to the demands of terrorists.  I ask you to follow that same policy now.  We the (most of the ) People ask you to veto the many nonsensical proposals about the debt limit now being offered up from all quarters.  We will survive a temporary default – and it will be temporary after the consequences are upon us – though our word and our dollar bill will never mean the same to citizens the world over.  But the far greater lesson that apparently needs to be learned, and point to be made, is that this current way of “playing politics” is no way to run a government.  It is not how democracy works.  It is not how We the People desire to spend the next 1½ years, embarrassed, frustrated and ill-served by government leaders basking in all of their self-generated noise.

It is time to stop this ugly, pathetic stage show that has been occurring in Washington for the last decade or more.  We the People need big thinkers right now with effective solutions that bring the center core of Americans forward together.  We have not seen such leaders in a long, long time.  In 2010 liberal left zealots were chastised and replaced.  In 2012 the same will happen to conservative right zealots.  History affirms that a time-honored correction to the middle when needed is what We the People do.

Entitlement

We hear a lot of discussion these days about “entitlements,” argued on moral, legal and economic terms.  It has become another one of those loaded words that often generates argument instead of discussion because we each react to our different meanings attached to the term.  And these often unrealized differences are critical when they are part of the ongoing dialog about government budget – and budget cutting – decisions.

I believe that there are two forms of entitlements: inherent entitlements and earned entitlements.  Both forms have examples in all three areas of the moral, legal and economic arenas.

There are certain expectations and rights that I believe that I am entitled to simply because I exist as a human being.  Simply because I exist as a human being, morally I am entitled to be treated with respect and dignity; with politeness and considerateness; to be listened to for my thinking and opinions; to be undiminished vis-à-vis any other person; to be mentally and physically free to live my life – without conflicting with others – in the full expression of my creativity.  Simply because I am a citizen of this country, legally I am entitled to protection from unprovoked harm; to the same right of “ownership” of my government as my neighbor regardless of wealth, position or heritage; to be treated equally under the law as any other regardless of my perceived standing in the community.  Simply because I am a creative person of beneficial outputs who must maintain my physical well-being (and perhaps the well-being of others), economically I am entitled to be treated honestly, without falsehoods; to be given the opportunity to meet my supportive needs; and to be appropriately compensated for the gifts of my talents to society.  Importantly, we are inherently entitled to “the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.”  (Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States, 1928).

These, and others that could be similarly enumerated, are inherent entitlements enabled for me simply because I am, I exist.  There is nothing I need do to obtain them; there is nothing another can rightfully do to deny them.  These rights and expectations therefore come with the fact of my humanness.  They are manifestations of the “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” espoused in our American Declaration of Independence.  For the spiritually minded, these are rights inherent in the beauty of our divine creation.

There are also the earned entitlements we have as a result of what we do, what we give, in response to our living responsibly within a greater society.  This form of entitlement is not due me simply because I am, but are in exchange for my positive contributions and efforts.  If my labors, skills, responsibilities and outputs are similar to another’s, economically I am entitled to comparable compensation regardless of age, gender or heritage.  If I live a different lifestyle that causes no true (versus perceived) injury to others, morally I am entitled to the full and equal benefits, protection and opportunities that society offers.  If I choose to worship God (by any name seen in any form) in a manner that causes no substantive harm or hindrance to another’s worship, and does not seek to convert them away from their beliefs, then morally and legally I am entitled to be left alone and undenied in my practice.  If I give a fair day’s labor, economically I am entitled to a fair day’s wage.  If I create or invent or transform an intangible concept into a tangible reality that is useful to society, economically I am entitled to be compensated for my work – a job not of labor but of creation.

Conflict arises when one tries to take away inherent entitlements – they cannot be taken away except by force.  Conflict arises when the magnitude or scope of earned entitlements become outsized, or the entitlement is no longer seen as “earned” (no quid pro quo has been exchanged).  However, such assessments are usually subjective, as seen in the eye of the assessor.

I would submit that unique talents and contributions deserve unique entitlements.  But does a $100M baseball contract reflect a truly unique talent, or that great a benefit to our society and culture?  Is the talent of many financial and corporate executives really worth 150,000 times greater compensation than the worker who actually produces their product?  If an entitlement to basic medical care is a measure of the genuine humaneness of America, should someone who ignores a healthy eating and lifestyle be so entitled?  Is every American looking for a job entitled to get one if s/he has not maintained or expanded the skills needed in a changing job market?   If a bank is entitled to a bailout for making many bad loans, should not a homeowner who signed on to that bad loan (or even a good one) be similarly entitled to loan forgiveness?  Do excess restrictions on the use of protected, copyrighted/patented materials wind up perversely preventing their utilization and enjoyment by society?  Is the recipient of our charitable gifts and social welfare entitled to take no steps, sit idly, and make no effort to move him-/herself out of their need for help?

As always, it is in the specifics, and the individual, that the idea of entitlement gets difficult.  It is in the gray areas, and the nuances, that the conversations become difficult, but they must always come back to match concept and realities with the heart.  We are not entitled to be absolutely protected from the realities of life, the realities of nature, the realities of our human community.  When we make bad choices ignoring those realities from the outset (e.g. building a beachfront home in Florida or on the banks of the Mississippi), we are not entitled to be rescued from our recklessness – though we can accept graciously and humbly the gifts of those who have determined to help us.

We are entitled to be allowed to fulfill our potential for happiness by receiving fair and equal treatment from others.  Yet even our inherent entitlements come only as long as we act from our inherent good, not in ignorance or discrimination of others.  When we fail on our side of our entitlements – whether inherent or earned – by not appreciating our inherent humanity or by not earning life’s rewards, then we become entitled to no entitlements at all.

The Spirit And Heart Of Governance

In 16th century pre-colonial America, five Native American tribes in upstate New York – the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca – came together to form the “Iroquois League” (League of Peace and Power). In true federalist spirit, each tribe retained control of its own day-to-day affairs in a decentralized form. But the League provided a framework for joint decisions and actions (especially in regard to common external affairs), and reaffirmed their interdependence among each other as beings from one Creator and their responsibility to live together in peace within universal equality.

To set the context for this league, a comprehensive Constitution of the Five Nations was created. It laid out in extensive detail the role, rules, and ritual of the Grand Council which would guide the joint actions of the tribes. The Grand Council was made up of 50 representatives, selected by the mothers within each respective tribe. New members of the Grand Council would accept their oath of service within a defined ritual, which included the following statement recited by current Grand Council members:

“We now crown you with the sacred emblem of the deer’s antlers, the emblem of your Lordship. You shall now become a mentor of the people of the Five Nations. The thickness of your skin shall be seven spans – which is to say that you shall be filled with peace and goodwill and your mind filed with a yearning for the welfare of the people of the Confederacy [League]. With endless patience you shall carry out your duty, and your firmness shall be tempered with tenderness for your people. Neither anger nor fury shall lodge in your mind, and all your words and actions shall be marked with calm deliberation.

In all your deliberations in the Council, in your efforts at lawmaking, in all your official acts, self-interest shall be cast into oblivion. Cast not away the warnings of others, if they should chide you for any error or wrong you may do, but return to the way of the Great Law, which is just and right.

Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and always have in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the earth – the unborn of the future Nation.”

Come forward around 200 years later, to the summer of 1787. Several dozen men of diverse backgrounds, goals, and political ideas from the 13 American states came together in Philadelphia charged with developing needed amendments to the Articles of Confederation then governing the United States. Four months later, they had opted instead to throw out the Articles entirely and replace it with a brand new Constitution. (There were statements made at the time that their action was perhaps an illegal maneuver, but virtually no one today is complaining about their bold innovation!) That Constitutional Convention produced a most incredibly creative document by establishing a new form of government heretofore unknown in civilized history. It was built upon a series of compromises designed to balance significant differences in the aspirations, fears, lifestyles, and religious / economic / social / cultural structures that then existed throughout 1780’s America. It was not a “perfect” document, principally due to leaving many Americans out of the full equality promised by the Declaration of Independence. And it is, at best, a framework for governance, not an oracle of detailed instructions. It was designed to be flexible and interpretative enough to evolve alongside of us as we continue to evolve as human beings.

But as strong as its message is in form, perhaps its weakness is in not inspiring us sufficiently in spirit. Maybe that is why we are so often disappointed in the men and women who present themselves to us as the potential actors in that constitutional form. Our Constitution gives them tools to work with, and stages to act upon. But we write our own scripts, and too often for too many these scripts are a desire to separate one’s self from others, or to seek fame at the expense of, or without consideration for, others.

So perhaps on occasion we need to look to the ancestral occupiers of this land. Look to those who were taught to live more within Nature and the heart of the land (rather than just the brain of human beings) in order to find an inspirational guidance that transcends Constitutional form. As people the world over have borrowed from our Constitution, so we should be open to borrowing from a constitution from within our heritage. As our leaders manipulate the levers of our Constitutional government, and make decisions based upon political dogma, budgetary arguments, I’m-right-you’re-wrong positioning, let us remind them – and ourselves – of another constitutional responsibility offered up nearly 500 years ago:

“With endless patience you shall carry out your duty, and your firmness shall be tempered with tenderness for your people. Neither anger nor fury shall lodge in your mind, and all your words and actions shall be marked with calm deliberation … self-interest shall be cast into oblivion … Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and always have in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the earth – the unborn of the future Nation.”

Form alone is not sufficient for good governance. Decisions measured against a litmus test of supposed literalistic wordings is not meaningful. Constitutional governance also requires an infusion of proper spirit and good heart to breathe life into its meaning and relevance. It is a spirit of selfless humility. It is a heart great enough to see, understand, and respond to everyone. With liberty and justice for all.

Closing The Loop

When we look back over any historical period, it can easily seem to be an indistinguishable blur of names, dates, places and events. But when we look back at the history surrounding our own time, there are usually several instances when certain historical milestones sear themselves into our mind – a frozen moment whose imagery and place is retained clearly in our consciousness for our lifetime. Unfortunately, all too often these moments involve death.

For my father, born in the then-“Indian Territory,” it was his sitting in a coffee shop and hearing that Oklahoma’s favorite son, Will Rogers, had died in a plane crash. For many of a departing generation, it was the radio announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, followed 3½ years later by the death of Franklin Roosevelt on the very eve of victory in World War II. Or perhaps it was the actual Victory Day in Europe (V-E Day) and/or Japan (V-J Day) that concluded those hostilities.

For me, and perhaps for many of my generation, such moments started with John Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, followed by Martin Luther King and then Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Or the landing on the moon in July 1969 that exemplified the realization of a powerful human dream. In the 1970s, Elvis’ death closed out the bobby-sox 50’s; John Lennon’s killing closed the idealistic 60’s. In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down, and freedom won out over oppression as Europe began to become one continent and belatedly fulfill the promise of World War II.

But the moment that most all living Americans now share is the day of September 11, 2001, and its almost surreal suspended aftermath. 3000 innocent people killed; a towering commercial center obliterated; a plane crash in Pennsylvania; an airborne ramming of the Pentagon. Two jetliners deliberately plowing into the Twin Towers is a still-life visual never forgotten – along with the shock of its intentionality, and the incomprehensible loss of the many would-be rescuers rushing in hopelessly to try to save the victims. Only to become victims themselves.

Regardless of the controversies that followed – the permanent changes in air travel; the disturbing compromises of our legal rights; one questionable war fought and now “stabilized” with 50,000 remaining soldiers; another war of ongoing fighting for nine long years, seemingly unending; the 9-1-1 cry for help that we did not answer; nearly $1 trillion spent – the suffering of then- through-now remains all too real and unforgotten. The images remain fresh and unchanged. Each of us remembers exactly where we were, what we thought, how we felt; it is our own personal story of “9-11.”

For me, I remember not only that day, and the emotional week thereafter, but an earlier connected moment. Three months before 9-11, I was attending a Buddhist conference in New York City. Thoughts and words of peace, of quiet, of connection, of expansive spirit filled all of the attendees. The gathering was held at the Sheraton Hotel, located in the Twin Towers Plaza. My room in the hotel was about 20 stories up; it looked directly into the windows of one of the adjacent towers, seemingly no more than 20’ away. Down below I could see the interior courtyard of the Plaza, and watch the people walking through and gathering for a moment of rest, or for a snack food. It was in that courtyard that I bought my souvenir New York City T-shirt. It was where I had verbally expressed the comment in that moment about how lucky I felt to be able to be living a good, productive and satisfying life.

Three months later, those words, thoughts and memories were still with me as I sat in front of a television screen and watched that entire physical setting being obliterated. Some of the people I had watched from my hotel window were likely now gone, along with thousands more I had not seen. I was part of that scene, yet I was not. I felt a personal connection to that place, yet I was not connected. It may have been a national moment, but it was still personal. Yet for a lot of others unable to respond, powerless to change what happened, for whom the victims had names and faces and individual stories, 9-11 was a whole lot more personal.

It somehow does not seem right to celebrate the death of any human being. Taking a life, for any reason, should never be done casually, never become too easily done. Yet the announcement of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader and embodiment of the 9-11 and other wanton killings, tempts us to feel such a cheering, if not outright joy. But I think it better to quietly focus my thoughts more on a sense of inevitable resolution, of the closing of a 10-year cycle of hate personified by one individual. Killing in revenge leaves us vulnerable to becoming the very killer we wish to reject. It might have been nice, therefore, to have been able to bring bin Laden back alive to face a trial for “crimes against humanity” and to face a justice he chose not to give to others. But that was always unlikely. Like Hitler, Tojo and others before him, bin Laden’s death was likely inevitable. The killing of bin Laden hopefully comes not from revenge, but is simply from the natural result that “living by the sword, you die by the sword.” Or “as you sew, so shall you reap.” Violence begets violence; killing begets killing. In that thought is a quiet but important closure, while we also remember to honor the many innocent victims of his despicable actions.

Killing Osama bin Laden does not end terrorism in this world. It will in fact incite a greater commitment to terrorism among those who will choose to martyr his death. But his death ends a symbol of indiscriminate killing, and like words, symbols are important. It says that, in the end, terrorism will not triumph, and good people will ultimately persevere and defeat such evil and its actions. It is not a difference nor division of race, of nationality, of ethnicity, of religious affiliation. It is simply a difference of choosing to do good towards all others or to do harm. Ultimately, no cause under any political or religious banner justifies the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings. For those to choose to slaughter, I leave any further judgment of them to God.

Picking Your Battles

Most of us are familiar with The Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” On a more secular level, there is perhaps a need to add an additional line, to the effect that, “… and the judgment to direct my energies towards those best changes I can create.”

There is no lack of topics that cry out for change today. Yet for any one of us to try to attempt to engage them all will ultimately be self-defeating. If we are too disperse, we risk making so little impact on so many needs. Hence the additional adage to “pick your battles wisely,” where you can truly make a significant difference. Philanthropists typically say it is better to give a substantial donation to a few causes, rather than small amounts to many deserving organizations. In business, we hear the admonition that it is better to do a few things well than trying to be all products to all markets. Militarily, a few decisive engagements are far more effective than endless skirmishing – unless you are badly out-numbered and out-resourced, of course!

For most caring and empathetic people of moral standards and inclinations toward universal justice and equality, such advice towards “selective limits” can be tough to swallow. Why support this change and not that? Why correct this wrong and not that? John Kennedy’s observation that “life is not fair” may be true, but it leaves an empty gnawing in our stomachs. History has many examples of the consequences of reaching too far. Yet it also shows what happens when we do not reach at all.

Which brings us to the current events in the MENA regions (Middle East / North Africa). In such a short span of months, unimaginable events are occurring at a speed and interrelatedness that could not have been foreseen. It is, as Dickens said, “the best of times and worst of times.” Similarly, our emotional and intellectual responses to what we see and hear can be greatly conflicted. It is all complicated by the reality that many individual countries are involved in protest/revolution/change, but the form, manner and motivation differ inside each country. Each plays out its own story, with its own characters, operating consciously but independently of each other. It is not a change driven by the usual religious differences or land possession arguments or east/west differences as we are used to. It is driven instead by youthful ambition, extreme under-/unemployment, pervasive never-ending poverty, lack of a sense of personal and cultural respect, and an absence of freedom – freedom of movement, choice, participation in government and the influences on one’s own destiny and life.

Change is always scary, because one can only read the current chapter of our life story, not the future ones. So we cannot know where each of these MENA stories will end up. Even the ugly dictator we know can feel safer than the revolutionary we do not. But life – and change – is always a risk. Logically, we know that the bad guys will never get better, and they will only delay ultimate change, not deter it. We also know that ordinarily we can control and determine only a little bit of the outside changes that surround and impact us.

In our hearts, though, we are always with the little guys in their boldness to overcome adversity and oppression. We who were politically born in revolution cannot off-handily deny our affiliation with our modern kindred. Every American who proclaims love for universal freedom at some point has to put up or be shown to be an empty voice. So we have to be involved in this sea change that is occurring. The only question is HOW. The only answer is SMARTLY.

We have continually abused our relationships with the MENA countries over the years, interfering with their governments, siding with dictators, de facto owning their oil. We sold them plenty of guns and missiles, but not much food, marketplaces, farms and economic opportunities. We have made continual negative statements about their cultures and humanity. Then we wonder why they hate us. Right now is our opportunity to correct some of our mistakes.

So we need to support changes in Egypt – the historical leader in the region – with intellectual contributions and economic and entrepreneurial aid to its citizens (not the military, though they have behaved admirably). Tunisia, where it all started? Probably ditto, though its impact on the world’s future is considerably less. These changes will be messy; we can’t know how it will all turn out over time. But our American Revolution was pretty messy at the beginning too; 200 years later we still struggle with true freedom for all.

Which brings us to Libya. So far, I believe Obama has chosen the right actions, based upon what we have known at moments in time. Here was a very real potential for a bloodbath. But in Libya is also where conditions said we could probably successfully prevent such an outcome, at a minimum dollar and human cost. We could demonstrate true international leadership by building a genuine coalition, and prove ourselves to be responsive to a first-ever Arab call for our intervention, a call we would be foolish to ignore. Assuming that we keep our promise for “no boots on the ground,” and remain properly in the back seat of future actions instead of our typically telling everybody what to do, militarily we can handle this level of our engagement. Are we stretched economically and militarily? Yes. Can we handle this proportion of action? Yes. This particular trade-off is focused and achievable. But in lieu of their non-existent militaries, some dollars from the oil-rich MENA countries who asked us to help in Libya would be appropriate to offset our costs of engagement.

But what about all the other protestors, why not help them? Yemen: too totally tribal, in chaos, another Afghanistan. Bahrain: better achieved by “back door” diplomacy. Syria: bad news place, intervention is another Iraq. Iran: Worse than another Iraq, leadership too entrenched.

War sucks. Unfortunately it is still part of our human condition. So like it or not, we make selected choices about where to act, and adapt different responses to different situations. (Although we can hope that our choices will not simply be motivated by our usual greed for oil, but for higher purposes.) Once again, such selectivity can be hard to swallow. The cultural genocide that China is committing in Tibet sickens the soul. The enslavement of the Myanmar (Burma) people by “the generals” is unforgivable. But we nevertheless need to make decisions about who, what and where. We accept that our brains will be satisfied, but our hearts will not. There will be no universal logic here; there will be universal regret about what we cannot change – yet. While we seek to change to rightness what we can, where we can, how we can, we will still pray that each wrong will still be righted in its own time.

Follow The Moving Money

Warren Buffet is the 2nd richest person in America, and one of the most successful corporate investors. When he has something to say about the economy, people listen. One of his most recent comments was: “Money will always flow toward opportunity, and there is an abundance of that in America. [Our] best days lie ahead.” Then he went on to lay down a few more billion dollars on his latest corporate acquisition.

Buffet also famously said, “I never buy anything whose business purpose and plan I cannot understand.” Good advice. The man avoids speculation and focuses on solid real businesses that create tangible products and/or provide really needed services that people need, not just paper profits. As a result, he managed to quite nicely survive the 2000 “dot.com” collapse as well as the more recent real estate/mortgage implosion.

But while Mr. Buffet may represent the substantive version of “money flows to opportunity,” too many other investors (speculators) have a more unseemly version of that concept. In spite of all the talk about the current Great Recession, the flip side is that right now there are too many people and corporations with too many dollars on their hands. They are people that profited from the Great Recession, who sold off early and left “the suckers” holding the worthless mortgages; the unethical CEOs who took the bailout money from the Bush administration, recapitalized their losses, quickly paid back the taxpayers/government with barely a “thank you,” and then went about their business-as-usual practices unscathed. Add in the already rich that are invested in the “basic need” products (e.g. agriculture, energy, oil) who never ventured into the financial swamp and suffered little from the downturn. Combine all that money with the record profits big corporate America is enjoying (versus middle-class wage earners) due to lean staffing, the world’s highest productivity per worker, and the typically more than 50% of corporate earnings coming from overseas operations. Despite what the economic news reports say to Mr./Ms. Average American, this investor class right now is awash in excess dollars.

But dollars sitting dormant in a bank account do not grow. They need to be put somewhere, converted from stagnant to working dollars. The first option is to buy another money generator, available to be bought at a depressed price, and a good cash cow that can generate more good profits. In that strategy, we are seeing a growing market for corporate mergers and acquisitions.

But when you run out of “real” products (aka other businesses) to acquire, you have to create new products. Creating real, tangible products that people need takes too long, is hard work, and requires actual skills – in engineering, research, manufacturing, management and marketing. Too slow. It is much quicker to simply make dollars from “the sale of sales”: easy effort, low overhead, almost a one-person operation, easy in, get out at the right moment. All you need is some excess cash (hopefully someone else’s!) to play with, sufficient to make enough noise to convince others that “the next big thing” is coming around the corner. Like a magnet on steel, the dollars will begin to flow.

That is essentially what happened with the internet bubble of the 1990s. Amazon and EBay came into being, and a new industry of “online retail” was born. Anyone with a good story and a 20-year-old programmer was in business looking for financing. Venture capitalists who could not spell “i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t” pumped in billions of dollars; companies with no assets went public on the New York Stock Exchange. Stock prices soared; paper millionaires abounded; sales and revenues were non-existent. Then one day it all imploded. Investments disappeared for the late buyers who got into the game “before it was too late.” Because it was already too late. The smart ones got in at the front, contained their greed, and walked away with the real cash.

Same thing happened a few years later, when some folks said, “Let’s go back to our old money-making friends – real estate & mortgage sales; they are always good for a fresh run.” We were all horrified at Bernie Madoff’s gigantic Ponzi scheme: new investments covering old investments hiding no assets. The Great Recession was the biggest Ponzi scheme of all – but today only Madoff sits in jail.

Today we are seeing the latest legalized Ponzi scheme – except the rich boys are smart enough to call it “Capitalism’s supply and demand.” Each week – or is it each day? – I drive by a 3-gas-station intersection and observe the current price/gallon. For months it has gone up as steadily as the coming spring temperatures. 2-3 years ago when we heard of a $3.50 price the news media were all over the story; the vacation industry predicted its collapse as people canceled vacations and cruises; new commuting and driving habits were promised; the case for alternative energy versus Middle East oil had finally been made! Then the crude oil price collapsed, and we all went back to driving the same as before.

Now we are watching a rerun of that movie. Like before, there is no real shortage of oil in barrels; demand is inching up, but quantity is still adequate. Libya’s instability in the latest blamed culprit for prices – but prices had begun to rise long before the first protestor hit the streets of Tripoli. And the price at the pump rises the same day that crude oil rises, even though that gas will not be in the ground at my local station for months. No, this is not about supply and demand or capitalism. It is about cash – too much of it with nowhere else to go. Oil traders and moneymen put out the word that “oil is the next great place where we are going to play with money.” With this announcement (and fueled by all the economic talking heads predicting $4/gallon this summer), speculators all jumped in like trained seals and bid up the price from $50 → $100 → $??? just because they can. They are all betting with each other on what will be the ultimate price limit for this episode of the monopoly game – and who will be the ones left holding the empty barrel. It has nothing to do with actual oil.

The moneymen play with other people’s money. The working stiff leaves his/her car at home and tries to ride multiple bus connections to work. Politicians want to drill more off-sea oil, which will only create more oil to invest in, not oil needed for cars and furnaces. Congress inexplicably votes to continue to give the most profitable corporations – oil companies – tax subsidies while concurrently screaming about the need to cut costs and balance the federal budget, and to cut funding for the new financial regulatory mechanisms designed to prevent a recurrence of this past decade’s financial fraud.

Go try to figure this thing out. And why we continue to allow it. I can’t.