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.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Dis-Unionizing
In my blog posting of January 29th, 2011, we discussed the quantum leap from campaign rhetoric about shrinking government and reducing deficits and debts to actually legislating such seismic changes. Especially with reductions of the scale promised by incoming conservatives from the 2010 election. Since that blog was posted, we have seen some of the opening salvos of the federal, state and local budget battles to come, previews of the economic and political gyrations that will likely dominate this year’s national discussions.
While the federal government thus far dithers and grandstands and maneuvers, the real battles have emerged in the states. Unlike the federal budget, deficits are not allowed there. A small number of states are in good shape for their next fiscal year; many are facing colossal shortfalls. The short-term answer in ½-dozen states? Blame the problem, and find the solution, on “state workers.” Starting with Wisconsin and moving to other (mainly mid-Western rust belt) states, reducing wages and/or benefits, raising benefit premiums, limiting/eliminating union bargaining rights regarding employment aspects, has become a magic bullet solution for these states. In terms of political agenda and values, it is a Republican’s dream issue come true, and a Democrat’s worse nightmare.
Truth be told, there are in fact changes that need to be made in government employment and are well overdue. Sadly, those specific surgical changes needed are likely to be overwhelmed and lost in the rush of an attempted meat-cleaver dismantling of public service. “We’re broke” will be used as a blanket excuse to fulfill long-frustrated political agendas, just as “creating jobs” will be used as an excuse for trying to eliminate every government regulatory agency and rule in sight, regardless of net value to the citizenry.
Unfortunately, in many instances government employees, teachers and their unions have brought a certain measure of this havoc upon themselves. There are large numbers of employees engaged in providing services to the people that are appropriate for our federal/state/local governments. Many do so with high personal and ethical standards, genuine concern about the mission and clients they serve, and professionalism in their manner of performance and resulting output. There are many educators, from kindergarten through college, who intensively believe in the value of the knowledge they teach and the human potential that exists in their students, potential just waiting to be tapped into and released. These workers slog on against micromanagement, inadequate facilities and resources, lack of public understanding of what they do and how they have to do it, and the arcane rules and process they have to work within in order to do their jobs. These are all people who deserve far better than they have been given.
But there are also far too many employees whose dedication is only to themselves. Whose creativity has long burned out, whose interest for the concerns of citizens has disappeared, whose job performance is unacceptable by any standard of measure, or whose job conduct is unethical at best if not illegal. The only apparent skill set they now have is knowing well how to beat or milk “the system.” The rules, union contracts, human resource policies and procedures, combined with unqualified supervisors unwilling (or un-allowed) to take on bad performers, all conspire to keep under-performers firmly in place and grossly overpaid.
These are the public employees that taxpayers often see, very visible on the front lines of taxpayer contact. It is the bureaucrat behind the counter who does not have answers and could care less about your problems or the time demands on you. It is the school teacher who cannot teach and cares little about your child’s needs. It is the college professor who is more interested in his/her research and pet projects than teaching or properly advising his/her students – in spite of continually rising tuition charges. Behind them may be untrained toxic-supervisors stifling or driving out good performers while keeping their lesser cronies. The public does not often see the flat wages, hiring freezes, broken or insufficient equipment, unpaid overtime, and a constant demand to “do more with less” environment that many dedicated employees work within. They all too frequently instead see this worst-of-the-bunch who are held unaccountable for their incompetency and unethical conduct. It is not a question of rank; it is a protected incompetency that can extend from the custodian to the professional to the department head to the college president. It is a special protection, a cocoon, that the average taxpayer does not have available, and this have/have-not is disturbing when your home ownership is threatened.
As long as public employees and their unions continue to countenance this unaccountability of their peers, and continue to clean up after them and do their work, the vast innocents will be tarnished and likewise buried under this growing taxpayer revolt. Yes, taxpayers will scream once again when teachers get laid off for budget reasons and classroom sizes swell; they will protest reductions in staffing for police and fire safety; they will be frustrated by reduced office hours in government offices or the reduced services available to them. These are all the standard tricks of the protest techniques polished by years of union reaction strategies. But this time people may well endure these complaints if they feel that they are not getting value for their tax dollars, or that they are being asked to save jobs for people who do not deserve to be saved. Because when you feel no one is looking out to help save your job, or assist you in your financial need, or has some special rules available to them, it is harder to be charitable to someone who you feel is not a job worth saving.
How this will play out is hard to predict. But responsible educators and public employees would be well advised to get in front of reform after long years of being the unyielding wall against any change, or being silent about in-bred incompetencies. The old fear arguments may no longer work today. Some people may be willing to have their child in a larger class IF it means that there is a better teacher in front of the room, and the parent with a resulting improved after-tax income can better afford to clothe, feed and shelter that child. It is time to cut loose and quit protecting those that do not deserve protection, and for all of us to give our full support to the still dedicated high-performing ones who richly deserve it. To clean your own house before others do it for you in ways you will not like. “The times they are a-changing.”
While the federal government thus far dithers and grandstands and maneuvers, the real battles have emerged in the states. Unlike the federal budget, deficits are not allowed there. A small number of states are in good shape for their next fiscal year; many are facing colossal shortfalls. The short-term answer in ½-dozen states? Blame the problem, and find the solution, on “state workers.” Starting with Wisconsin and moving to other (mainly mid-Western rust belt) states, reducing wages and/or benefits, raising benefit premiums, limiting/eliminating union bargaining rights regarding employment aspects, has become a magic bullet solution for these states. In terms of political agenda and values, it is a Republican’s dream issue come true, and a Democrat’s worse nightmare.
Truth be told, there are in fact changes that need to be made in government employment and are well overdue. Sadly, those specific surgical changes needed are likely to be overwhelmed and lost in the rush of an attempted meat-cleaver dismantling of public service. “We’re broke” will be used as a blanket excuse to fulfill long-frustrated political agendas, just as “creating jobs” will be used as an excuse for trying to eliminate every government regulatory agency and rule in sight, regardless of net value to the citizenry.
Unfortunately, in many instances government employees, teachers and their unions have brought a certain measure of this havoc upon themselves. There are large numbers of employees engaged in providing services to the people that are appropriate for our federal/state/local governments. Many do so with high personal and ethical standards, genuine concern about the mission and clients they serve, and professionalism in their manner of performance and resulting output. There are many educators, from kindergarten through college, who intensively believe in the value of the knowledge they teach and the human potential that exists in their students, potential just waiting to be tapped into and released. These workers slog on against micromanagement, inadequate facilities and resources, lack of public understanding of what they do and how they have to do it, and the arcane rules and process they have to work within in order to do their jobs. These are all people who deserve far better than they have been given.
But there are also far too many employees whose dedication is only to themselves. Whose creativity has long burned out, whose interest for the concerns of citizens has disappeared, whose job performance is unacceptable by any standard of measure, or whose job conduct is unethical at best if not illegal. The only apparent skill set they now have is knowing well how to beat or milk “the system.” The rules, union contracts, human resource policies and procedures, combined with unqualified supervisors unwilling (or un-allowed) to take on bad performers, all conspire to keep under-performers firmly in place and grossly overpaid.
These are the public employees that taxpayers often see, very visible on the front lines of taxpayer contact. It is the bureaucrat behind the counter who does not have answers and could care less about your problems or the time demands on you. It is the school teacher who cannot teach and cares little about your child’s needs. It is the college professor who is more interested in his/her research and pet projects than teaching or properly advising his/her students – in spite of continually rising tuition charges. Behind them may be untrained toxic-supervisors stifling or driving out good performers while keeping their lesser cronies. The public does not often see the flat wages, hiring freezes, broken or insufficient equipment, unpaid overtime, and a constant demand to “do more with less” environment that many dedicated employees work within. They all too frequently instead see this worst-of-the-bunch who are held unaccountable for their incompetency and unethical conduct. It is not a question of rank; it is a protected incompetency that can extend from the custodian to the professional to the department head to the college president. It is a special protection, a cocoon, that the average taxpayer does not have available, and this have/have-not is disturbing when your home ownership is threatened.
As long as public employees and their unions continue to countenance this unaccountability of their peers, and continue to clean up after them and do their work, the vast innocents will be tarnished and likewise buried under this growing taxpayer revolt. Yes, taxpayers will scream once again when teachers get laid off for budget reasons and classroom sizes swell; they will protest reductions in staffing for police and fire safety; they will be frustrated by reduced office hours in government offices or the reduced services available to them. These are all the standard tricks of the protest techniques polished by years of union reaction strategies. But this time people may well endure these complaints if they feel that they are not getting value for their tax dollars, or that they are being asked to save jobs for people who do not deserve to be saved. Because when you feel no one is looking out to help save your job, or assist you in your financial need, or has some special rules available to them, it is harder to be charitable to someone who you feel is not a job worth saving.
How this will play out is hard to predict. But responsible educators and public employees would be well advised to get in front of reform after long years of being the unyielding wall against any change, or being silent about in-bred incompetencies. The old fear arguments may no longer work today. Some people may be willing to have their child in a larger class IF it means that there is a better teacher in front of the room, and the parent with a resulting improved after-tax income can better afford to clothe, feed and shelter that child. It is time to cut loose and quit protecting those that do not deserve protection, and for all of us to give our full support to the still dedicated high-performing ones who richly deserve it. To clean your own house before others do it for you in ways you will not like. “The times they are a-changing.”
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Progress By Generations
Some days when we survey the state of our country and our personal lives, it can easily be a discouraging view. The problems are many; the solutions seem few and ineffective; progress appears stunted; our divisions run deep. The density of the trees of our problems seems to shut out the sunlight through the forest that can guide us to a new place of being. The issues in front of us often seem to be the same recurring issues mankind has faced for millennia. In the reality of billions of people in this world, the possibility of my individual self making much of a real difference in the state of things feels pretty minimal.
When I get those feelings of discouragement, if not pessimism, it seems helpful to retreat back from a today’s perspective and look instead at a longer view of the human condition and its evolution. As it turns out, our American experience seems like a pretty good reference point of human progress.
On a comparative basis, America is still a relatively young country. We realize that when we visit Europe, Asia or the Middle East, all of whom measure time in the thousands of years. Our founding history seems like so long ago in proportion to our individual lives and experiences, and our images of our colonial times. Yet in truth we are only a little over 225 years old as an independent country. At today’s rates of life expectancy, our entire history can be encapsulated within only three successive lifetimes. My mother’s life spanned 1919-1999, essentially a scan of the 20th century after World War I. Her great grandfather from Tennessee fought for the South in the Civil War, and lived to see the dawn of the 20th century and hear about a man in flight above the earth. One lifetime before him, a son of my Revolutionary War patriot ancestor was born at the beginning of the American Republic, and grew up with it into our ultimate test of the Civil War. And now my own grandchildren are just beginning the 4th lifetime of the American Story. How much will we have seen through the course of our lifetime!
If we go a step further and break down our story over the twelve 20-year generations of our experience, it surprises me how neatly our historical story can be boxed up in that increment. It is as if God perfectly gives each generation its shot to make its mark, advance the human condition one net step forward out of that generation’s chaos, and then pass the torch on to the next group to try once again. Each generation has its major failing, but it is balanced by its major accomplishment. So what does our “story by the generations” look like?
1763-1788: The end of the French-Indian war, resulting in heavy taxes on America, which led to the American Revolution and the confederation of American States. The American was opportunity created.
1788-1808: U.S. Constitution and the federal system – radical new experiment in government. BUT: citizenship and voting rights limited by race, gender, age and religion – white property-owning males (the elite), only @10-16% of the population. Founding Fathers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson et al.
1809-1828: 2nd (and last) generation of Founding Fathers: Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams. War of 1812. American government stabilized, lasting precedents established. Last religious citizenship restriction eliminated.
1829-1848: Leadership passed from Founding Fathers to era of “the common man.” Property ownership citizenship restriction eliminated. First American war of expansion, with Mexico. Westward expansion; Indian relocation. Jackson and a new “western / frontier” breed of presidents.
1849-1876: Slavery, Secession, and Reconstruction. Union affirmed; slavery ended. Race citizenship restriction eliminated. Lincoln, Grant presidencies.
1877-1900: Big business and mega-wealth: era of the super-rich – Carnegie, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Vanderbilts; creation of economic elite. Rise of trade unionism and violent strikes against management. Cycles of booms and depressions. Successive un-noteworthy presidents.
1901-1920: International engagement and World War I; Invention and entrepreneurs – Edison, Ford, entertainment industry (radio, movies, records). Gender citizenship restriction eliminated; direct election of U.S. senators by voters. Anti-trust legislation/breakup of monopolies. Child labor laws. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson presidencies.
1921-1940: Economic boom (Harding/Coolidge/Hoover) followed by bust – Great Depression (Franklin Roosevelt). Liberalism, social programs, federal government expansion; institution of “social safety net” for disadvantaged. Financial regulation laws/agencies enacted. Jazz → Swing eras. Silent Charlie Chaplain → Bob Hope radio; “The Birth of a Nation” → “Wizard of Oz.”
1941-1960: “Greatest Generation.” World War II; begin 65 years of peace in Western Europe. International leadership/superpower; ideological war with USSR. Korean War. Domestic calm, growth of new “middle class.” Sinatra → Elvis. African-American integration of schools and military. Eisenhower.
1961-1980: Upheaval, unrest, loss of institutional trust. Assassinations, Viet Nam, street demonstrations, rioting in cities. Youth versus parents. Civil rights and women’s movement push anti–discrimination in fact, not just in law. Medicare instituted. American on moon. Beatles; Peter/Paul/Mary. Kennedy/Johnson; Nixon-1st resignation of a president.
1980-2000: Retrenchment: liberalism → political center. Middle-class recoil from social change, growth of “conservative right.” Begin economic deregulation. Fall of USSR; freedom to Eastern Europe. Internet/instant global communication. Reagan, Bush, Clinton presidencies.
2000-2020: ?????
Each generation has suffered its share of trials of war, economic hardships, and social disruption. But each generation has made some progress in our economic well-being, mutual relationships, social justice and our equal rights of citizenship. What will history say about this current generation of our story, the story that began in 2000?
The past has led us to today; our present will lead us to tomorrow. Where is our tomorrow going? What do we want it to look like? The momentous events we have watched unfold in Egypt over these past weeks call upon us to ask ourselves – What will we choose to do or say today that will cause the creation of that tomorrow?
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do some things. Just because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.” (Edward Everett Hale, UUC minister)
When I get those feelings of discouragement, if not pessimism, it seems helpful to retreat back from a today’s perspective and look instead at a longer view of the human condition and its evolution. As it turns out, our American experience seems like a pretty good reference point of human progress.
On a comparative basis, America is still a relatively young country. We realize that when we visit Europe, Asia or the Middle East, all of whom measure time in the thousands of years. Our founding history seems like so long ago in proportion to our individual lives and experiences, and our images of our colonial times. Yet in truth we are only a little over 225 years old as an independent country. At today’s rates of life expectancy, our entire history can be encapsulated within only three successive lifetimes. My mother’s life spanned 1919-1999, essentially a scan of the 20th century after World War I. Her great grandfather from Tennessee fought for the South in the Civil War, and lived to see the dawn of the 20th century and hear about a man in flight above the earth. One lifetime before him, a son of my Revolutionary War patriot ancestor was born at the beginning of the American Republic, and grew up with it into our ultimate test of the Civil War. And now my own grandchildren are just beginning the 4th lifetime of the American Story. How much will we have seen through the course of our lifetime!
If we go a step further and break down our story over the twelve 20-year generations of our experience, it surprises me how neatly our historical story can be boxed up in that increment. It is as if God perfectly gives each generation its shot to make its mark, advance the human condition one net step forward out of that generation’s chaos, and then pass the torch on to the next group to try once again. Each generation has its major failing, but it is balanced by its major accomplishment. So what does our “story by the generations” look like?
1763-1788: The end of the French-Indian war, resulting in heavy taxes on America, which led to the American Revolution and the confederation of American States. The American was opportunity created.
1788-1808: U.S. Constitution and the federal system – radical new experiment in government. BUT: citizenship and voting rights limited by race, gender, age and religion – white property-owning males (the elite), only @10-16% of the population. Founding Fathers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson et al.
1809-1828: 2nd (and last) generation of Founding Fathers: Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams. War of 1812. American government stabilized, lasting precedents established. Last religious citizenship restriction eliminated.
1829-1848: Leadership passed from Founding Fathers to era of “the common man.” Property ownership citizenship restriction eliminated. First American war of expansion, with Mexico. Westward expansion; Indian relocation. Jackson and a new “western / frontier” breed of presidents.
1849-1876: Slavery, Secession, and Reconstruction. Union affirmed; slavery ended. Race citizenship restriction eliminated. Lincoln, Grant presidencies.
1877-1900: Big business and mega-wealth: era of the super-rich – Carnegie, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Vanderbilts; creation of economic elite. Rise of trade unionism and violent strikes against management. Cycles of booms and depressions. Successive un-noteworthy presidents.
1901-1920: International engagement and World War I; Invention and entrepreneurs – Edison, Ford, entertainment industry (radio, movies, records). Gender citizenship restriction eliminated; direct election of U.S. senators by voters. Anti-trust legislation/breakup of monopolies. Child labor laws. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson presidencies.
1921-1940: Economic boom (Harding/Coolidge/Hoover) followed by bust – Great Depression (Franklin Roosevelt). Liberalism, social programs, federal government expansion; institution of “social safety net” for disadvantaged. Financial regulation laws/agencies enacted. Jazz → Swing eras. Silent Charlie Chaplain → Bob Hope radio; “The Birth of a Nation” → “Wizard of Oz.”
1941-1960: “Greatest Generation.” World War II; begin 65 years of peace in Western Europe. International leadership/superpower; ideological war with USSR. Korean War. Domestic calm, growth of new “middle class.” Sinatra → Elvis. African-American integration of schools and military. Eisenhower.
1961-1980: Upheaval, unrest, loss of institutional trust. Assassinations, Viet Nam, street demonstrations, rioting in cities. Youth versus parents. Civil rights and women’s movement push anti–discrimination in fact, not just in law. Medicare instituted. American on moon. Beatles; Peter/Paul/Mary. Kennedy/Johnson; Nixon-1st resignation of a president.
1980-2000: Retrenchment: liberalism → political center. Middle-class recoil from social change, growth of “conservative right.” Begin economic deregulation. Fall of USSR; freedom to Eastern Europe. Internet/instant global communication. Reagan, Bush, Clinton presidencies.
2000-2020: ?????
Each generation has suffered its share of trials of war, economic hardships, and social disruption. But each generation has made some progress in our economic well-being, mutual relationships, social justice and our equal rights of citizenship. What will history say about this current generation of our story, the story that began in 2000?
The past has led us to today; our present will lead us to tomorrow. Where is our tomorrow going? What do we want it to look like? The momentous events we have watched unfold in Egypt over these past weeks call upon us to ask ourselves – What will we choose to do or say today that will cause the creation of that tomorrow?
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do some things. Just because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.” (Edward Everett Hale, UUC minister)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Cut Unneeded Spending - Yours!
The political mantra of 2011 thus far is that it is all about “cutting spending.” This is supposedly the people’s message coming out of the 2010 election. But I suspect that some among us are listening to the people’s message with a tin ear. In fact, 43% in a recent CBS/New York Times poll listed Job Creation as the most important government priority, far outstripping the 18% wanting to revisit Health Care, and only 14% who prioritized Budgeting Cutting.
So let’s talk about this #3 priority – budget cutting – which has nevertheless become the #1 priority of the Washington folks. Is our national debt too high? Yes. Is our annual budget deficit too high? Yes. Is that budget deficit increasingly limiting our ability to be flexible in our national spending decisions, to be able to move spending where it needs to go? Yes. And is our national debt lurking as a behind-the-scenes national security issue, minimizing our response to international issues based upon our debt to other countries? Yes.
We hear of a target by some Tea Party conservatives of cutting $100B from the federal budget this year. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, proposed a spending freeze for 5 years at 2008 levels, but only on non-security spending. This after he had already proposed a 2-year salary freeze on some – but not all – government employees. He endorsed the Republican proposal to end budget earmarks, to which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told him to “back off.” House Republicans voted to reduce their own operating budget; Obama endorsed spending cuts but is opting to reinvest in education, infrastructure and energy. Representative Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Chairman and once a firebrand of targeted, radical spending cuts, came on TV and gave a very good Republican response to Obama’s speech. He reinforced the goal of spending cuts, but said such very gently, in a non-threatening manner, with no specifics stated.
The fact is, everyone is now on board the same “USS Spending Cuts” ship, but no one has yet plotted a sailing course. The nautical maps remain in the drawers. It is like my junior high school prom where all the boys and girls are standing against opposite walls, no one willing to be the ones to break the ice and actually go out on the dance floor. Everyone talks about cutting spending, but no one wants to be the first to say “where.” Why? Because talking about cutting spending at the gross level is easy – “Let’s cut $100B.” (Everyone applauds.) But a cut in spending is actually a cut in some favored program, a cut in services, a cut in someone’s grant award, a loss of someone’s tax benefit. The cut ultimately becomes personal and shows up in someone’s bank account, pay stub, or loss of expected services.
Parks close or stop being maintained. Teachers and police get laid off. Medical assistance gets eliminated. New buildings or municipal projects don’t get built. Agricultural subsidies get cut for food corporations. Purchases from businesses are reduced. “Cutting spending” ultimately translates into “you don’t get anymore what you used to get.” And we have gotten very used to getting what we have gotten. Vague, generic headlines become personal. And when it gets personal, people get angry.
So no politician wants to move yet past the headlines and tell people what really has to happen. The President’s special debt commission delivered their true and sobering report in December – and politicians both left and right said “no” and scurried for cover. But that commission jump-started the real conversation and thankfully gave us a good yardstick we can use to measure all the empty rhetoric we will hear through this year.
Everyone is for cutting government spending – as long as it is money being spent on YOU. If we all can agree on the need to cut, we do not agree at all on where to cut. Your “savings” are my “loss.” Almost all states are facing significant budget deficits this year, having been artificially kept afloat the past two years by the federal stimulus program. Reality beckons. When schools start closing and teachers are let go and class sizes swell, 50% of a police force are let go, libraries are shuttered, students can’t get into college, and municipal services are cut back, then spending cuts will hit home. Eliminating cell phones for many state employees is nice symbolism, but will not make much of a dent in California’s $20B+ deficit.
When we finally really talk about cutting significant spending, it will be ugly. Doomsday scenarios will abound; finger-pointing will be plentiful. Conservatives will rush to protect military spending and the corporate welfare (versus military needs) that drive that budget; liberals will decry cuts to social programs and human welfare that drive discretionary spending. Cutters will nevertheless seek to insulate; insulators will seek to cut. We will go around in circles over what are really questions of 1) national priority; 2) the role of government; and 3) impacts on the American people. Is protecting a national park more or less important than protecting a job than protecting me from a robber than keeping citizens healthy?
The discussion will start with trying to identify the losers, who will get cut, how to maneuver to save my needs from the budget ax. It is only when we accept that all of us have to take this hit in some form that true progress will begin to happen. When nothing is sacrosanct then we have a chance to equitably move forward. We have to look at all things without prejudice.
When Republicans are willing to stop spending dollars on military hardware we don’t need because it pays corporations and employees back home in their districts; when liberals are willing to hold up on educational investments that support shoddy schools, incompetent teachers and self-promoting universities; when WE the citizens stop judging our elected officials by how much grant money they bring home to us for projects we often don’t really need nor are a national priority – when we begin to see politicians on the left and right move away from their traditional stump speeches, sound-bites and stated priorities, only then will I begin to believe that we are truly serious about cutting government ending. And when I see We, the People, supporting those political changes, and giving up our personal benefits and sharing the pain together, then I will believe that we are serious. Until then, it is all talk, all show, all going nowhere. It will just be another angry, divisive moment that we are becoming numb to.
It is time for all my junior high classmates to move away from the wall, talk to each other, and begin to dance together before our dreaded curfew arrives.
So let’s talk about this #3 priority – budget cutting – which has nevertheless become the #1 priority of the Washington folks. Is our national debt too high? Yes. Is our annual budget deficit too high? Yes. Is that budget deficit increasingly limiting our ability to be flexible in our national spending decisions, to be able to move spending where it needs to go? Yes. And is our national debt lurking as a behind-the-scenes national security issue, minimizing our response to international issues based upon our debt to other countries? Yes.
We hear of a target by some Tea Party conservatives of cutting $100B from the federal budget this year. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, proposed a spending freeze for 5 years at 2008 levels, but only on non-security spending. This after he had already proposed a 2-year salary freeze on some – but not all – government employees. He endorsed the Republican proposal to end budget earmarks, to which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told him to “back off.” House Republicans voted to reduce their own operating budget; Obama endorsed spending cuts but is opting to reinvest in education, infrastructure and energy. Representative Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Chairman and once a firebrand of targeted, radical spending cuts, came on TV and gave a very good Republican response to Obama’s speech. He reinforced the goal of spending cuts, but said such very gently, in a non-threatening manner, with no specifics stated.
The fact is, everyone is now on board the same “USS Spending Cuts” ship, but no one has yet plotted a sailing course. The nautical maps remain in the drawers. It is like my junior high school prom where all the boys and girls are standing against opposite walls, no one willing to be the ones to break the ice and actually go out on the dance floor. Everyone talks about cutting spending, but no one wants to be the first to say “where.” Why? Because talking about cutting spending at the gross level is easy – “Let’s cut $100B.” (Everyone applauds.) But a cut in spending is actually a cut in some favored program, a cut in services, a cut in someone’s grant award, a loss of someone’s tax benefit. The cut ultimately becomes personal and shows up in someone’s bank account, pay stub, or loss of expected services.
Parks close or stop being maintained. Teachers and police get laid off. Medical assistance gets eliminated. New buildings or municipal projects don’t get built. Agricultural subsidies get cut for food corporations. Purchases from businesses are reduced. “Cutting spending” ultimately translates into “you don’t get anymore what you used to get.” And we have gotten very used to getting what we have gotten. Vague, generic headlines become personal. And when it gets personal, people get angry.
So no politician wants to move yet past the headlines and tell people what really has to happen. The President’s special debt commission delivered their true and sobering report in December – and politicians both left and right said “no” and scurried for cover. But that commission jump-started the real conversation and thankfully gave us a good yardstick we can use to measure all the empty rhetoric we will hear through this year.
Everyone is for cutting government spending – as long as it is money being spent on YOU. If we all can agree on the need to cut, we do not agree at all on where to cut. Your “savings” are my “loss.” Almost all states are facing significant budget deficits this year, having been artificially kept afloat the past two years by the federal stimulus program. Reality beckons. When schools start closing and teachers are let go and class sizes swell, 50% of a police force are let go, libraries are shuttered, students can’t get into college, and municipal services are cut back, then spending cuts will hit home. Eliminating cell phones for many state employees is nice symbolism, but will not make much of a dent in California’s $20B+ deficit.
When we finally really talk about cutting significant spending, it will be ugly. Doomsday scenarios will abound; finger-pointing will be plentiful. Conservatives will rush to protect military spending and the corporate welfare (versus military needs) that drive that budget; liberals will decry cuts to social programs and human welfare that drive discretionary spending. Cutters will nevertheless seek to insulate; insulators will seek to cut. We will go around in circles over what are really questions of 1) national priority; 2) the role of government; and 3) impacts on the American people. Is protecting a national park more or less important than protecting a job than protecting me from a robber than keeping citizens healthy?
The discussion will start with trying to identify the losers, who will get cut, how to maneuver to save my needs from the budget ax. It is only when we accept that all of us have to take this hit in some form that true progress will begin to happen. When nothing is sacrosanct then we have a chance to equitably move forward. We have to look at all things without prejudice.
When Republicans are willing to stop spending dollars on military hardware we don’t need because it pays corporations and employees back home in their districts; when liberals are willing to hold up on educational investments that support shoddy schools, incompetent teachers and self-promoting universities; when WE the citizens stop judging our elected officials by how much grant money they bring home to us for projects we often don’t really need nor are a national priority – when we begin to see politicians on the left and right move away from their traditional stump speeches, sound-bites and stated priorities, only then will I begin to believe that we are truly serious about cutting government ending. And when I see We, the People, supporting those political changes, and giving up our personal benefits and sharing the pain together, then I will believe that we are serious. Until then, it is all talk, all show, all going nowhere. It will just be another angry, divisive moment that we are becoming numb to.
It is time for all my junior high classmates to move away from the wall, talk to each other, and begin to dance together before our dreaded curfew arrives.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Words Matter
Words Matter.
Last week, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was wounded while conducting a street-side open house with her constituents. Six people in attendance were killed, including a senior federal judge and one of Gifford’s aides, and 13 were wounded. Another angry, loony shooter – whose name I intentionally refuse to state here –has once again captured headlines and left us shaking our collective heads.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who spent most of the last year being a most hateful person in word, demeanor and action, offered (empty) condolences to Giffords and the many families. In contrast, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (of Giffords’ home county) spoke truth to power and called out what we truly know. He observed that, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government: the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, never able to let respectful silence go by unfilled, said that, “we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” But in her statement, Mrs. Palin took no responsibility for helping to create the environment of violence in which politics now operates. However, the image on her website of Congresswoman Giffords’ house district which showed an “X” target in the crosshairs of a gun sight was quickly deleted. Just a coincidence of timing, I am sure. Palin subsequently posted a video defending herself against accusations that her words had contributed to this situation, but then went on to use inflammatory words against those she felt used inflammatory words. There are times when plain silence is the best response.
Words Matter.
I have decried before the cavalier manner in which too many people will say anything, and often do so in violent imagery, for personal fame and gain. Black congressmen walking into the Capitol building to vote for health care reform were subjected to a gauntlet of racial slurs; gun-toting protestors showed up at political rallies; screamers dominated political meetings; public officials have been threatened or their offices broken into; a congressman was treated as a hero for yelling “you lie” at the President in an official State of the Union address. This last year in politics has been tortuous to observe, and an embarrassment to our supposed moral and political leadership role in the world. There have been times when it has felt like we are living in some 3rd- or 4th- world backward country in which violence, lies and revolution are the norm.
As with so many things these days, when is enough yet enough? When does political life stop being a game and become something far more important? How and when does the great American Middle – the Middle that still knows what respect and thoughtful discussion entails – stand up and say STOP. Whether the 20120 election sends a corrective message or aggravates an already intolerable situation remains to be seen. Likely, “the message” will be in the ear of the congressional listener, interpreted not as a “voice of the people” but a “voice of the people I choose to hear that already agree with me.”
The inflammatory rhetoric will likely continue. The talk of “doing the people’s business” will likely dissolve into “doing our political business as usual.” Disrespectful, non-compromising non-relationships will likely continue as people seek their own agenda over any legitimate goals and needs of others. The art of reaching out, finding common ground, and making progress within a greater good rather than a selfish good, will struggle to not become a disappearing art. Fox News chief Roger Ailes told his broadcasters to “Shut up, tone it down, make your arguments intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.” But will this edict last after all the memorial services are over? Only 24-hours later it was questionable. Ailes also said that “Both sides (the right and left) are wrong, but they both do it.” He is right about that: proper conduct is a personal thing, and no one political group owns it. Congress observed a moment of silence in respect for the shooting victims; perhaps an hour of silent reflection would be more meaningful and effective?
It may never be able to be proved that this latest shooter actually saw Sarah Palin’s website, and so saw his congresswoman in a rifle’s crosshair sight. He may never have specifically heard Michelle Bachman talk about “Obama Nazi youth camps” or Palin’s “death panels.” He may not have heard the numerous other voices using the branded code words like “Obama-care” (Republicans) or “Socialist agenda” (Gingrich); he may not have read the many websites claiming that our freedoms are endangered and must be defended – implicitly or explicitly by violent resistance. But he clearly lives, as do we, in a place where fear and anger increasingly surround us every day in our news and in our “entertainment,” and in a Facebook world built upon a need for individual attention if not notoriety. Regardless of where the shooter’s obsession with Giffords came from, we have taught our crazies all too well and frequently that the release of their angers and achievement of their need for attention is in mass shootings – from whence the cameras and news media will come; anonymity will give way to infamy.
Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting will soon move to a distant memory, like all the other shooting victims before her. Her shooter will have his 15 minutes of non-stop attention that he could not get otherwise. An unfortunate number of people offering prayers today will shortly go back to their lies and hateful words. Business as usual will return all too soon. Will any lasting lessons have been learned?
Words Matter.
The reality is that our current environment of fear and anger is ugly. Too many blatantly contribute to this directly through their media role, or in a political role that gives them access to that media. Supposedly “responsible mainstream media” who allow this environment to continue without complaint nor exposing it to truth share responsibility for this environment.
But we are equally responsible when we buy into this misinformation, and make these “fakers of fear” into perverted celebrities of would-be truth. It is our job to speak out against this dangerous climate, and the dangerous people who hide behind soft words, nice appearances, cutesy smiles and simpleton statements. In each of our own little corners of the universe, we are obligated to model right speech in right relationships with our neighbor – and chastise those who do not. If our leaders cannot lead us to where we need to go, then we need to lead ourselves in right directions through right conduct. Then, hopefully, our leaders will find us and follow.
Words Matter. We always have the power to choose the words that we speak, and the speakers that we listen to. Finding the right words begins, as it always does, at home, with ourselves.
Last week, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was wounded while conducting a street-side open house with her constituents. Six people in attendance were killed, including a senior federal judge and one of Gifford’s aides, and 13 were wounded. Another angry, loony shooter – whose name I intentionally refuse to state here –has once again captured headlines and left us shaking our collective heads.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who spent most of the last year being a most hateful person in word, demeanor and action, offered (empty) condolences to Giffords and the many families. In contrast, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (of Giffords’ home county) spoke truth to power and called out what we truly know. He observed that, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government: the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, never able to let respectful silence go by unfilled, said that, “we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” But in her statement, Mrs. Palin took no responsibility for helping to create the environment of violence in which politics now operates. However, the image on her website of Congresswoman Giffords’ house district which showed an “X” target in the crosshairs of a gun sight was quickly deleted. Just a coincidence of timing, I am sure. Palin subsequently posted a video defending herself against accusations that her words had contributed to this situation, but then went on to use inflammatory words against those she felt used inflammatory words. There are times when plain silence is the best response.
Words Matter.
I have decried before the cavalier manner in which too many people will say anything, and often do so in violent imagery, for personal fame and gain. Black congressmen walking into the Capitol building to vote for health care reform were subjected to a gauntlet of racial slurs; gun-toting protestors showed up at political rallies; screamers dominated political meetings; public officials have been threatened or their offices broken into; a congressman was treated as a hero for yelling “you lie” at the President in an official State of the Union address. This last year in politics has been tortuous to observe, and an embarrassment to our supposed moral and political leadership role in the world. There have been times when it has felt like we are living in some 3rd- or 4th- world backward country in which violence, lies and revolution are the norm.
As with so many things these days, when is enough yet enough? When does political life stop being a game and become something far more important? How and when does the great American Middle – the Middle that still knows what respect and thoughtful discussion entails – stand up and say STOP. Whether the 20120 election sends a corrective message or aggravates an already intolerable situation remains to be seen. Likely, “the message” will be in the ear of the congressional listener, interpreted not as a “voice of the people” but a “voice of the people I choose to hear that already agree with me.”
The inflammatory rhetoric will likely continue. The talk of “doing the people’s business” will likely dissolve into “doing our political business as usual.” Disrespectful, non-compromising non-relationships will likely continue as people seek their own agenda over any legitimate goals and needs of others. The art of reaching out, finding common ground, and making progress within a greater good rather than a selfish good, will struggle to not become a disappearing art. Fox News chief Roger Ailes told his broadcasters to “Shut up, tone it down, make your arguments intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.” But will this edict last after all the memorial services are over? Only 24-hours later it was questionable. Ailes also said that “Both sides (the right and left) are wrong, but they both do it.” He is right about that: proper conduct is a personal thing, and no one political group owns it. Congress observed a moment of silence in respect for the shooting victims; perhaps an hour of silent reflection would be more meaningful and effective?
It may never be able to be proved that this latest shooter actually saw Sarah Palin’s website, and so saw his congresswoman in a rifle’s crosshair sight. He may never have specifically heard Michelle Bachman talk about “Obama Nazi youth camps” or Palin’s “death panels.” He may not have heard the numerous other voices using the branded code words like “Obama-care” (Republicans) or “Socialist agenda” (Gingrich); he may not have read the many websites claiming that our freedoms are endangered and must be defended – implicitly or explicitly by violent resistance. But he clearly lives, as do we, in a place where fear and anger increasingly surround us every day in our news and in our “entertainment,” and in a Facebook world built upon a need for individual attention if not notoriety. Regardless of where the shooter’s obsession with Giffords came from, we have taught our crazies all too well and frequently that the release of their angers and achievement of their need for attention is in mass shootings – from whence the cameras and news media will come; anonymity will give way to infamy.
Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting will soon move to a distant memory, like all the other shooting victims before her. Her shooter will have his 15 minutes of non-stop attention that he could not get otherwise. An unfortunate number of people offering prayers today will shortly go back to their lies and hateful words. Business as usual will return all too soon. Will any lasting lessons have been learned?
Words Matter.
The reality is that our current environment of fear and anger is ugly. Too many blatantly contribute to this directly through their media role, or in a political role that gives them access to that media. Supposedly “responsible mainstream media” who allow this environment to continue without complaint nor exposing it to truth share responsibility for this environment.
But we are equally responsible when we buy into this misinformation, and make these “fakers of fear” into perverted celebrities of would-be truth. It is our job to speak out against this dangerous climate, and the dangerous people who hide behind soft words, nice appearances, cutesy smiles and simpleton statements. In each of our own little corners of the universe, we are obligated to model right speech in right relationships with our neighbor – and chastise those who do not. If our leaders cannot lead us to where we need to go, then we need to lead ourselves in right directions through right conduct. Then, hopefully, our leaders will find us and follow.
Words Matter. We always have the power to choose the words that we speak, and the speakers that we listen to. Finding the right words begins, as it always does, at home, with ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)