Alan Greenspan was a Reagan appointee as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006. He was the darling of many businesspeople and conservative politicians as a proponent of deregulation and a free-market system. However, when called to testify before a House committee investigating the financial collapse of 2008, he said, “I made a mistake in assuming that the self-interest of an organization, specifically banks, is such that they were capable of protecting shareholders and equity in their firms. The fact that they simply sought predatory gains for themselves [at the expense of customers] … was a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.” This semi-apology for the “flaw” in his perception of the motivation of financial leaders was presaged by his earlier statement in 2002 that, “It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed [have] grown so enormously.”
And so we have the flip side of the lure of business deregulation. In a prior blog, the subject was the need for regulation to protect my physical wellbeing, and the wellbeing of the environment that surrounds me, from those who would cause harm. The second need for regulation is a simple one: to keep people honest, thereby making our economy safe from crooks and business hypocrites.
We hear a lot about the wonders and benefits of capitalism and a free-market economy – benefits that I believe in strongly. But we likewise hear many complaining about how government regulations are supposedly strangling those benefits and limiting our growth. To which I again say, “horse hockeys.”
Our current reality is that we do a lot of rah-rah talk a lot about capitalism, but it is many businesspeople that have strangled American capitalism into near oblivion. Capitalism only works when you have: a) easy entry into the marketplace to provide new competition and produce “better mousetraps”; b) open supply lines to meet unrestricted demand; c) truthful and transparent access to product information; and d) everyone playing by the same rules. But those are not the conditions of the American economy today. And contrary to the noise-making, the extent to which we do have these pillars of capitalism is only thanks to government regulations that provide them in spite of the negative efforts of many businesspeople.
The entry of new players into the market is not easy today given the dominance of the few mega-players in each industry. Such mega-players dominate the percentage of market share available, and de facto dictate the products to be sold and their price. New startups either get crushed by these heavyweights, or bought out and absorbed, or get pushed into smaller niche slices of the market. We have two economies in America – the mass marketplace blanketing our everyday “generic” needs usually dominated by only 3-5 real players per industry; a specialty marketplace of small local vendors who nevertheless still have to compete with chain competitors (e.g. your local burger place versus McDonalds). Yet even with their dominance, the big corporations still lobby for special treatment to drive out “the little guys.” Greed to control markets knows no bounds. It is only through the old Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 100+ years ago, and its regulatory descendants, that keep America from being totally monopolized like the early 1900’s.
Supply and demand are often no longer free-flowing. Just look at the recent spike in gasoline prices in spite of lower domestic demand and increased drilling within America. (America is now a net exporter of oil even as people scream for more drilling.) But gasoline prices are driven by commodity traders (speculators) with no concern about resulting pump prices – and all half-dozen gas retailers move their prices together on the same day-by-day. Why worry about Middle East oil sheiks when the real power players are at the minimally-regulated Chicago commodities market. Same story for critical medicines that are being hoarded to jack up prices. Or unmet demand for better gas mileage in cars and for alternate energies that improve only due to government pressure. Left on their own, too many businesspeople would corner the market and sit on their protected laurels. Anti-monopolistic regulations seek to keep the capitalistic market open.
Capitalism’s self-regulatory mechanism – consumer choice – only works if consumers know what products actually are. Consumers need full disclosure to make informed buying decisions, thereby eliminating bad businesses through their spending choices. But the track record of such disclosures in business is very poor. Filler materials in food; chemical additives in agriculture and manufacturing; product defects leading to recalls; hidden fees in bank charges and loan agreements; pyramid investment or retailing schemes; non-published medical fees. All of these and others exemplify the willingness of too many businesspeople to deceive the American people as to what they are actually buying. Where we are prevented from making a genuine choice due to deception, regulation has been needed to keep many self-proclaimed capitalists honest. All of those labels we read on the goods we buy came from government mandates, not voluntarily from businesspeople’s consciences.
Which brings us to playing by the rules. Capitalism needs some level of free-wheeling and free-thinking individualism. It sparks the creativity and inventiveness that have made our economy great. But it also demands honesty and everyone playing under the same rulebook. Favoritism must be crushed. Big corporations spend millions on lobbyists and politicians to get special legal, tax, regulatory or non-competitive bids to the exclusion of their competition and to the detriment of the consumer. “Business success” should not be measured by wins in the legislatures, but by wins in an open marketplace ruled by quality and meeting demand. Yet competitors and small businesspeople are being frozen out of the game by rules set by others. When the marketplace is disempowered from its ability to self-regulate due to rigged rules, then it is only by regulation that some pushback towards fairness can be achieved.
On the mantle over my kitchen fireplace sits a set of five small, antique pewter containers of varying size. They represent standard measures for serving alcohol, required in Irish bars @150 years ago, all because bartenders had proven themselves untrustworthy to fill customer drinks to proper mixtures. It was that same kind of shortchanging that gave us the “baker’s dozen” of 13 items to ensure honest selling to consumers. I am all for capitalism, and always have been. But our economic history is sadly filled with many dishonest capitalists. It has been only regulation, enforcement and exposure that have keep such dishonesty somewhat at bay.
Regulation needs to be trim, focused, and appropriate without being overly-detailed and constricting. But when businesspeople complain about regulation, my answer is simple: then behave honestly and virtuously. Regulation arises from a failure to act properly and responsibly in the first place. Until proven otherwise, regulation and oversight is needed.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Case For Regulation - Part 1
James Madison once said, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflection on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
In our country today, we are blessed with many ethical and dedicated people in business and industry. People who seek to do the right thing, treat their employees fairly, create good products and stand by them, and deal honestly with their customers. We do not often hear about what they do, as they are usually overshadowed in the news headlines by the self-serving crooks and frauds who corrupt their professions. But it is these ethical ones that we should respect, acknowledge and reward with our business whenever we have the choice of our suppliers.
For the all-too-many others, those who are not angels, we should rightly express our contempt and seek to put them out of business and/or hold them accountable as appropriate. Unfortunately, in our complex, multi-layered business structures of today, it is near impossible for an individual American to identify such miscreants, let alone take effective action to protect or remedy such malfeasance. Business has gotten too large and commanding, with too many layers in their hierarchies, and with too many links in their supply and distribution chain, to peel them apart and see what is truly happening inside them. Hence government is the only real counterweight of sufficient size to defend against those businesspeople who act irresponsibly.
Many businesspeople complain loudly today about “government intrusion,” with regulation being a primary object of their complaint. They claim that if we would just get rid of “unnecessary and unneeded” government regulations, supposedly our economy would be booming again, jobs would be plentiful, and all would be well across the land. To which I emphatically reply, “horse hockey.” Yes, there are a very few I would be willing to trust to act on their own for my well-being. But the overall track record speaks a different story, and thus far I choose to err on the side of prevention rather than cure.
Many rail against the Environmental Protection Agency. But I have seen the raw sewage emptying into our waterways, the beaches closed due to disease-infested water. I have seen the residue of greasy film and grime on my window sills from the smog in the air. I have seen pristine lands and forests disappear under the bulldozers’ wake and developers’ callous disregard, and the scars of strip mines dug in the name of “progress.” I have seen the smoke from automobile engines and power plant smokestacks. I have seen the trash littering the highways, and the toxic chemicals poured into the ground without regard for the runoff into people’s property and their crops. And so I say “NO thank you” to the people who have perpetrated these actions, and “YES, thank you” to the government agencies who have worked to stop these abuses.
I have seen the faces of coal miners caked in black as they emerge from their deep pits, gasping for oxygen due to black lung disease. I have seen factory workers with mis-shapened bodies from standing on the assembly or food production lines doing physically repetitive tasks without relief or concern from the front office. I have seen migrant farm workers living in squalor, and the working poor who still cannot earn enough of a wage to provide a decent standard of living for their families. And I say “thank you” to those government agencies who have made our workplace and labor practices safer.
I have seen fields of cows crushed against each other, standing in mud and waste slop at troughs of corn intended to fatten them up – more fat and weight for higher, faster profits. Or similar rows of chickens in narrow cages for higher yields per square foot. We hear food alerts of chemical or bacterial infections on our “fresh” produce, and see grocery shelves cleared out but not before deaths are recorded. We read about the concrete powders inserted into baby formula and the carcinogens blended into construction drywall so that Chinese manufacturers can increase profit margins. We find out after-the-fact that something called “pink slime” is automatically added to our hamburger meat; seafood is now “grown” in small, filthy tanks instead of caught from the ocean; milk and grains have been genetically modified so that what we think we are buying is not what we are actually getting. So I say “thank you” to the Food and Drug Administration and others for stopping such activities when they can. Or at least for forcing producers to label their products with the truth of where they came from and are actually made of – a truth that the businessperson did not care to honestly and voluntarily tell me.
The list can go on and on with many other government agencies and the oversight that they do. Can regulation be too exhaustive and overdone? Absolutely yes. Especially when regulations go too deep, or are not properly proportionally “scaled” among small, medium, very large, and multi-national companies. One-size fits all does not fit all. Regulations need to be well-balanced, and oftentimes they are not. But as much as I personally despise rules and regulations on me set by outsiders – I am too freakin’ a radical independent at heart – right now I do not trust the alternative of deregulation very much, or companies operating on the honor system. How do we think we got into our current mess?
I have heard several CEOs of multi-national corporations complain that they can do business faster and easier in China than the U.S., implying that our government is unwarrantingly limiting their economic potential. I actually have no doubt that they can do business easier in China. A company that is used to telling people what to do should be comfortable working with a dictatorial government that treats its people the same way and simply tells them where a plant will be put without meddlesome public discussion. China has a peasant labor force willing to leave their homes and families for months at a time, live barracks-style in factory dormitories, work for $1/hour in 12-hour shifts – including younger children – all with no ability to complain. But China will also steal companies’ copyrights and insist on getting their trade and manufacturing secrets, and if you do not acquiesce then they will freeze you out. And in those instances, to whom do these businesspeople turn to for help? Their supposedly interfering federal government.
No, the price of doing business as China does is way too high. We lived in such primitive economic times 100+ years ago, and decided that profit alone is not enough. Socially responsible and legal profit also matter. Until men prove that they are in fact responsible angels, I will opt for constraint on them. And so for “promoting the general welfare” and providing for our “common defense” against corporate abuse when it occurs, once again I say “Thank You” to those government regulations and regulators who help to keep the needed balance we very much need to have.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. observed, “It may be true that the law cannot change the heart. But it can restrain the heartless.”
In our country today, we are blessed with many ethical and dedicated people in business and industry. People who seek to do the right thing, treat their employees fairly, create good products and stand by them, and deal honestly with their customers. We do not often hear about what they do, as they are usually overshadowed in the news headlines by the self-serving crooks and frauds who corrupt their professions. But it is these ethical ones that we should respect, acknowledge and reward with our business whenever we have the choice of our suppliers.
For the all-too-many others, those who are not angels, we should rightly express our contempt and seek to put them out of business and/or hold them accountable as appropriate. Unfortunately, in our complex, multi-layered business structures of today, it is near impossible for an individual American to identify such miscreants, let alone take effective action to protect or remedy such malfeasance. Business has gotten too large and commanding, with too many layers in their hierarchies, and with too many links in their supply and distribution chain, to peel them apart and see what is truly happening inside them. Hence government is the only real counterweight of sufficient size to defend against those businesspeople who act irresponsibly.
Many businesspeople complain loudly today about “government intrusion,” with regulation being a primary object of their complaint. They claim that if we would just get rid of “unnecessary and unneeded” government regulations, supposedly our economy would be booming again, jobs would be plentiful, and all would be well across the land. To which I emphatically reply, “horse hockey.” Yes, there are a very few I would be willing to trust to act on their own for my well-being. But the overall track record speaks a different story, and thus far I choose to err on the side of prevention rather than cure.
Many rail against the Environmental Protection Agency. But I have seen the raw sewage emptying into our waterways, the beaches closed due to disease-infested water. I have seen the residue of greasy film and grime on my window sills from the smog in the air. I have seen pristine lands and forests disappear under the bulldozers’ wake and developers’ callous disregard, and the scars of strip mines dug in the name of “progress.” I have seen the smoke from automobile engines and power plant smokestacks. I have seen the trash littering the highways, and the toxic chemicals poured into the ground without regard for the runoff into people’s property and their crops. And so I say “NO thank you” to the people who have perpetrated these actions, and “YES, thank you” to the government agencies who have worked to stop these abuses.
I have seen the faces of coal miners caked in black as they emerge from their deep pits, gasping for oxygen due to black lung disease. I have seen factory workers with mis-shapened bodies from standing on the assembly or food production lines doing physically repetitive tasks without relief or concern from the front office. I have seen migrant farm workers living in squalor, and the working poor who still cannot earn enough of a wage to provide a decent standard of living for their families. And I say “thank you” to those government agencies who have made our workplace and labor practices safer.
I have seen fields of cows crushed against each other, standing in mud and waste slop at troughs of corn intended to fatten them up – more fat and weight for higher, faster profits. Or similar rows of chickens in narrow cages for higher yields per square foot. We hear food alerts of chemical or bacterial infections on our “fresh” produce, and see grocery shelves cleared out but not before deaths are recorded. We read about the concrete powders inserted into baby formula and the carcinogens blended into construction drywall so that Chinese manufacturers can increase profit margins. We find out after-the-fact that something called “pink slime” is automatically added to our hamburger meat; seafood is now “grown” in small, filthy tanks instead of caught from the ocean; milk and grains have been genetically modified so that what we think we are buying is not what we are actually getting. So I say “thank you” to the Food and Drug Administration and others for stopping such activities when they can. Or at least for forcing producers to label their products with the truth of where they came from and are actually made of – a truth that the businessperson did not care to honestly and voluntarily tell me.
The list can go on and on with many other government agencies and the oversight that they do. Can regulation be too exhaustive and overdone? Absolutely yes. Especially when regulations go too deep, or are not properly proportionally “scaled” among small, medium, very large, and multi-national companies. One-size fits all does not fit all. Regulations need to be well-balanced, and oftentimes they are not. But as much as I personally despise rules and regulations on me set by outsiders – I am too freakin’ a radical independent at heart – right now I do not trust the alternative of deregulation very much, or companies operating on the honor system. How do we think we got into our current mess?
I have heard several CEOs of multi-national corporations complain that they can do business faster and easier in China than the U.S., implying that our government is unwarrantingly limiting their economic potential. I actually have no doubt that they can do business easier in China. A company that is used to telling people what to do should be comfortable working with a dictatorial government that treats its people the same way and simply tells them where a plant will be put without meddlesome public discussion. China has a peasant labor force willing to leave their homes and families for months at a time, live barracks-style in factory dormitories, work for $1/hour in 12-hour shifts – including younger children – all with no ability to complain. But China will also steal companies’ copyrights and insist on getting their trade and manufacturing secrets, and if you do not acquiesce then they will freeze you out. And in those instances, to whom do these businesspeople turn to for help? Their supposedly interfering federal government.
No, the price of doing business as China does is way too high. We lived in such primitive economic times 100+ years ago, and decided that profit alone is not enough. Socially responsible and legal profit also matter. Until men prove that they are in fact responsible angels, I will opt for constraint on them. And so for “promoting the general welfare” and providing for our “common defense” against corporate abuse when it occurs, once again I say “Thank You” to those government regulations and regulators who help to keep the needed balance we very much need to have.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. observed, “It may be true that the law cannot change the heart. But it can restrain the heartless.”
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Return Of The Social Agenda
There are those times when you think that that irritating dog next door that frequently disturbs your relaxing time in your backyard has decided to sleep quietly and just let be lie. Then your neighbor – who you are not too crazy about anyway – decides to wake that sleeping dog and the unwelcome disturbance starts up again. Unfortunately, we have a political equivalent to that scenario now occurring. The sleeping dog of the “social agenda” has recently been re-awakened, and we have been forced to listen to its bark yet again.
First, we have the recurring gay rights battle for equal marriage. California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. The opinion was intentionally and tactically written very narrowly to focus only on the California amendment process, not the broad national spectrum of gay marriage itself, making it much more difficult (though not impossible) for the Supreme Court to overturn it. Then the state of Washington’s legislature and governor passed a gay marriage approval bill for that state, just as a half-dozen other states have now done. (Notably by the way, none of these states has been cast into hell a lá Sodom or Gomorrah.) Finally, New Jersey’s legislature passed the same approval, although Governor Chris Christy has vetoed it saying that he prefers a public referendum on the issue. So New Jersey will have to wait for now, but its time will come eventually.
I have already written of my personal opinion about gay marriage (see “Gay and Lesbian Marriage” posting of 12/15/2008), so I will not repeat those thoughts here. Full gay rights will ultimately come, just as every other prior denial of rights has gradually been (or is being) overturned. It just has to be slogged out one issue at a time, over time. Why we carry on for so long such fights of being on the wrong side of human justice I will never quite understand. But justice does and will ultimately come.
Next came the latest supposed “attack on religion” by our “demonic government.” This time in the form of an administrative ruling that all employers had to provide contraceptive coverage in their employee insurance programs. Religious institutions were exempted, but non-religious organizations connected to churches were not exempted (e.g. hospitals and schools supported by religious groups). Apparently these charitable and social institutions give their services only as long as you do it their way – a distinctive example of “conditional religious love for others.” Various religious leaders, principally of the Catholic Church hierarchy, screamed “violation of freedom of religion” and some commentators opted to see another battle front in the fantasized “war on religion.” (The only religious war we have is an ongoing battle to protect everyone’s religion equally.) Yet the real battle was over contraception itself, ignoring that in every poll taken at least 2/3rds of Catholics ignore their Church’s position against contraception. But Obama officials compromised: religious-attached organizations do not themselves have to offer contraception, but in such cases the insurance companies have to offer it to the employees directly – going around the Church. Fair enough – except for some priests and political candidates who still doth protest. Yet no one in the media, or in the church, or in the Congress trying to make hay over this issue bothered to actually include any women in this conversation!
There are several truths at work here. One is that our Constitution does promise each individual the freedom to exercise his/her religious belief, but it does not promise a legal obligation to support any particular church or specific dogma. Notwithstanding Mitt Romney’s unfathomable position that “corporations are people, too,” I feel no obligation to prop up any church by special laws. Each needs to succeed on its own merits based upon its ability to spiritually fulfill its congregation, not relying on secular government support. 40 years ago the IRS forced non-profit institutions (including these same religious-based institutions) to separate out those commercial activities not core to their charitable mission (e.g. bookstores, publishing companies, food operations). Those commercial activities had to operate and be taxed on an equal basis with other similar for-profit ventures without special favors (nor allowing untaxed income to certain non-profit “owners” seeking tax avoidance). Perhaps this standard should equally apply here. However noble it may be for a religious group to extend itself into the care, feeding or educating of people of their and other faiths, let them do so on an equal basis with other non-religious institutions – whether non-profit or for-profit. No special favors cloaked under a religious cloth. An “employer” is an employer, all with the same obligations to their employees, the same rules as everyone else plays under. Frankly, I am really tired of all these special rules for all kinds of special interest groups. Including churches.
Lastly, that usual bastion of conservative change, the military, once again delightedly surprised us in a positive way with progressive thinking. They decided that henceforth, women would be allowed full combat status. Rick Santorum, the Rip Van Winkle candidate who seems to have slept through the last 50 years of social change, decried the decision. He appears to be worried that male soldiers will be “distracted” from their job, feeling the extra need to “protect” these female combatants in battle; that the weaknesses of men’s feelings will cause more emotional entanglements, on the job romances, and increased sexual assaults. Did we not already traverse this terrain way back in the 1980s when women were seeking equal access to police, fire fighting, and construction jobs, as well as even being business executives? In conflict, every soldier is already looking over their shoulder at their buddies, protecting each other while concurrently fighting the enemy. Requiring women soldiers to stay in the “back lines away from battle” is nonsense in the urban wars of today where there is no front/back line; the battle lines are all around you. Bullets do not have gender. So we should give these women who are already in service a rifle to defend themselves.
So many old arguments. So many old fights. We have had these discussions too many times, been there and done that too often. Too many white-haired white guys talking about things they have never experienced, holding on to that which begs to be let go. More intent on maintaining the status quo of their power rather than advancing issues to new and needed conclusions.
Right now the highest priorities for most Americans are getting our country back into economic good heath, restoring home values, providing jobs for those who seek them, and establishing equal rules for everyone to play under. These (not-so-social) issues are simply distractions from these critical priorities, old news seeking renewed attention by out-of-touch old spokesmen now passed over. Let us let these three old dogs go back to sleep, let them lie quietly. Past beliefs and past times are past. And it is long past time for all of us to now move on to more important things.
First, we have the recurring gay rights battle for equal marriage. California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. The opinion was intentionally and tactically written very narrowly to focus only on the California amendment process, not the broad national spectrum of gay marriage itself, making it much more difficult (though not impossible) for the Supreme Court to overturn it. Then the state of Washington’s legislature and governor passed a gay marriage approval bill for that state, just as a half-dozen other states have now done. (Notably by the way, none of these states has been cast into hell a lá Sodom or Gomorrah.) Finally, New Jersey’s legislature passed the same approval, although Governor Chris Christy has vetoed it saying that he prefers a public referendum on the issue. So New Jersey will have to wait for now, but its time will come eventually.
I have already written of my personal opinion about gay marriage (see “Gay and Lesbian Marriage” posting of 12/15/2008), so I will not repeat those thoughts here. Full gay rights will ultimately come, just as every other prior denial of rights has gradually been (or is being) overturned. It just has to be slogged out one issue at a time, over time. Why we carry on for so long such fights of being on the wrong side of human justice I will never quite understand. But justice does and will ultimately come.
Next came the latest supposed “attack on religion” by our “demonic government.” This time in the form of an administrative ruling that all employers had to provide contraceptive coverage in their employee insurance programs. Religious institutions were exempted, but non-religious organizations connected to churches were not exempted (e.g. hospitals and schools supported by religious groups). Apparently these charitable and social institutions give their services only as long as you do it their way – a distinctive example of “conditional religious love for others.” Various religious leaders, principally of the Catholic Church hierarchy, screamed “violation of freedom of religion” and some commentators opted to see another battle front in the fantasized “war on religion.” (The only religious war we have is an ongoing battle to protect everyone’s religion equally.) Yet the real battle was over contraception itself, ignoring that in every poll taken at least 2/3rds of Catholics ignore their Church’s position against contraception. But Obama officials compromised: religious-attached organizations do not themselves have to offer contraception, but in such cases the insurance companies have to offer it to the employees directly – going around the Church. Fair enough – except for some priests and political candidates who still doth protest. Yet no one in the media, or in the church, or in the Congress trying to make hay over this issue bothered to actually include any women in this conversation!
There are several truths at work here. One is that our Constitution does promise each individual the freedom to exercise his/her religious belief, but it does not promise a legal obligation to support any particular church or specific dogma. Notwithstanding Mitt Romney’s unfathomable position that “corporations are people, too,” I feel no obligation to prop up any church by special laws. Each needs to succeed on its own merits based upon its ability to spiritually fulfill its congregation, not relying on secular government support. 40 years ago the IRS forced non-profit institutions (including these same religious-based institutions) to separate out those commercial activities not core to their charitable mission (e.g. bookstores, publishing companies, food operations). Those commercial activities had to operate and be taxed on an equal basis with other similar for-profit ventures without special favors (nor allowing untaxed income to certain non-profit “owners” seeking tax avoidance). Perhaps this standard should equally apply here. However noble it may be for a religious group to extend itself into the care, feeding or educating of people of their and other faiths, let them do so on an equal basis with other non-religious institutions – whether non-profit or for-profit. No special favors cloaked under a religious cloth. An “employer” is an employer, all with the same obligations to their employees, the same rules as everyone else plays under. Frankly, I am really tired of all these special rules for all kinds of special interest groups. Including churches.
Lastly, that usual bastion of conservative change, the military, once again delightedly surprised us in a positive way with progressive thinking. They decided that henceforth, women would be allowed full combat status. Rick Santorum, the Rip Van Winkle candidate who seems to have slept through the last 50 years of social change, decried the decision. He appears to be worried that male soldiers will be “distracted” from their job, feeling the extra need to “protect” these female combatants in battle; that the weaknesses of men’s feelings will cause more emotional entanglements, on the job romances, and increased sexual assaults. Did we not already traverse this terrain way back in the 1980s when women were seeking equal access to police, fire fighting, and construction jobs, as well as even being business executives? In conflict, every soldier is already looking over their shoulder at their buddies, protecting each other while concurrently fighting the enemy. Requiring women soldiers to stay in the “back lines away from battle” is nonsense in the urban wars of today where there is no front/back line; the battle lines are all around you. Bullets do not have gender. So we should give these women who are already in service a rifle to defend themselves.
So many old arguments. So many old fights. We have had these discussions too many times, been there and done that too often. Too many white-haired white guys talking about things they have never experienced, holding on to that which begs to be let go. More intent on maintaining the status quo of their power rather than advancing issues to new and needed conclusions.
Right now the highest priorities for most Americans are getting our country back into economic good heath, restoring home values, providing jobs for those who seek them, and establishing equal rules for everyone to play under. These (not-so-social) issues are simply distractions from these critical priorities, old news seeking renewed attention by out-of-touch old spokesmen now passed over. Let us let these three old dogs go back to sleep, let them lie quietly. Past beliefs and past times are past. And it is long past time for all of us to now move on to more important things.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Jobs of Government - Part 2
In Part 1 of this 2-part blog, we reminded ourselves of the first ten Constitutional statements of the powers invested in Congress, and thereby the Federal Government. It was towards an endpoint of better grounding ourselves in this election season to answer what should/should not be government’s roles and responsibilities. In this blog installment, let us finish that list.
(#11) “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” (#12) “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years.” (#13) “To provide and maintain a Navy.” (#14) “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” These statements are all about the government’s war powers. We did pretty well in our history with leaving to Congress the decision to go to war, and to the President to prosecute those wars. It all got confused after World War II. Since then, virtually none of our military engagements have been pursued based upon a formal Declaration of War from Congress. Instead, they have been unilateral actions by a president or a Congressional resolution for logistical support (Korea) or a mandate for defensive action (Viet Nam) with the exception of the 2nd Iraqi war – and we see how well that turned out!
The post-Viet Nam War Powers Act of 1973 gave some balance to this question with a flexible form for a president to act quickly on our behalf, but for Congress to decide on any long-term commitment. But most decisions on long-term commitment have been reduced to patriotism demagoguery (e.g. “who is the true patriotic American?”) or to legislative budget tricks (“who would not agree to support our men and women in uniform?”). All in all, in the past 60 years these congressional powers have not been working out too well, separate from any military outcomes themselves.
(#15) “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” (#16) “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” “Militia” is what we now call our National Guard, organized by and within each state and commanded by each governor respectively. These are the folks that often show up in times of disaster to help with local relief and rescue operations. But based upon statement #15, these were also the troops called into Federal service to enforce civil rights and integration laws in the 1950s/1960s (Eisenhower at Little Rock High School; Kennedy at Ole Miss University) rather than using federal troops over “civilian” issues. Even so, Federal troops were used frequently during the labor strikes and economic unrest from 1875-1932, and the state militia was used by various governors over similar instances – always in support of the established corporate owners and sitting governments calling these instances “insurrections.” In the late 1960s/early 1970s Viet Nam protest years, militia (Kent State) or federal troops (Capitol protests) were often called into service to put down street demonstrations or outbreaks of urban violence. In our Iraq and Afghanistan engagements, the National Guard has provided a major portion of our military strength for long years – not exactly what was originally intended for their role. (A significant portion of our Revolutionary Army was made up of independent local militia groups, sometimes operating alongside Washington’s army but also working independently in the local countryside.)
(#17) “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise such Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Congress is the landlord over Washington D.C. as a sort of “neutral zone” independent of any state (similar to the land in New York City where the United Nations sits). It also has superseding jurisdiction over property owned by the Federal government across the country – post offices, federal courthouses, national parks/forests, military bases, etc. This ownership issue was the basis for the first military act of the Civil War – the state of South Carolina firing on the Federal base at Fort Sumter to prevent its resupplying. Possession and separate jurisdiction are not always easy coexisting issues.
(#18) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This is the big escape clause. It works in combination with the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” in the 1st statement, and the “regulate Commerce … among the several States” in the 3rd statement. It is the clause that switches the Constitution from an objective to a subjective statement, from a literal to an interpretive criteria, from a static document to a fluid, evolving one.
All of these Constitutional powers leave the “how” unspecified and simply provide a framework for decision specificity. The majority of our commerce in now interstate, if not international. I live in North Carolina, have medical insurance through my state retirement program in Massachusetts, which is delivered by CVS headquartered in Woonsocket, RI and UniCare headquartered in Indianapolis, IN. Yet, for example, Obamacare opponents claim that Congress had no right to pass legislation prescribing individual health care, even under the interstate commerce clause. Only a potentially ideological and politicized Supreme Court could strike the law down on any supposed “constitutional grounds” – and well they might, given their track record this past decade.
With “provide for the … General Welfare,” any number of good and bad ideas can be argued to fit under that umbrella, and have been. And your ideas for “general welfare” are unlikely to be the same as mine. So resolving this question can never truly be an act of the Court, but must always be a Congressional act reflecting the current mood of the people (or the mood of Congress!). Which leads us to statement #18 – “make all Laws necessary and proper to execute these Powers.” “All” is a lot of laws. “Necessary” can reflect many different potential ways to get to a particular end. “Proper” reflects a perspective of our values and experiences – which is a perspective unique to each of our individual backgrounds. What is “permissible” for government’s role in our society could fill a suggestion box the size of a football stadium.
We can, should, and will have never-ending debates about what our Federal government’s role should be, either in general or as regards a particular issue seeking resolution. What we need to stop doing is pretending that our Constitution says things it actually does not, that it prohibits things it actually does not, that there is any such thing as a “strict constructionist” regarding an unrestricted meaning, or that “activist judges” are simply ones who interpret a law differently than we would. Our Constitution is a framework, a guideline, not a narrow law. It is up to us to determine, case by case, in our current time, how it can guide us to the best possible decisions. Just as with our important spiritual texts, the realization of its spirit is not in the words, but is in our hands.
(#11) “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” (#12) “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years.” (#13) “To provide and maintain a Navy.” (#14) “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” These statements are all about the government’s war powers. We did pretty well in our history with leaving to Congress the decision to go to war, and to the President to prosecute those wars. It all got confused after World War II. Since then, virtually none of our military engagements have been pursued based upon a formal Declaration of War from Congress. Instead, they have been unilateral actions by a president or a Congressional resolution for logistical support (Korea) or a mandate for defensive action (Viet Nam) with the exception of the 2nd Iraqi war – and we see how well that turned out!
The post-Viet Nam War Powers Act of 1973 gave some balance to this question with a flexible form for a president to act quickly on our behalf, but for Congress to decide on any long-term commitment. But most decisions on long-term commitment have been reduced to patriotism demagoguery (e.g. “who is the true patriotic American?”) or to legislative budget tricks (“who would not agree to support our men and women in uniform?”). All in all, in the past 60 years these congressional powers have not been working out too well, separate from any military outcomes themselves.
(#15) “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” (#16) “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” “Militia” is what we now call our National Guard, organized by and within each state and commanded by each governor respectively. These are the folks that often show up in times of disaster to help with local relief and rescue operations. But based upon statement #15, these were also the troops called into Federal service to enforce civil rights and integration laws in the 1950s/1960s (Eisenhower at Little Rock High School; Kennedy at Ole Miss University) rather than using federal troops over “civilian” issues. Even so, Federal troops were used frequently during the labor strikes and economic unrest from 1875-1932, and the state militia was used by various governors over similar instances – always in support of the established corporate owners and sitting governments calling these instances “insurrections.” In the late 1960s/early 1970s Viet Nam protest years, militia (Kent State) or federal troops (Capitol protests) were often called into service to put down street demonstrations or outbreaks of urban violence. In our Iraq and Afghanistan engagements, the National Guard has provided a major portion of our military strength for long years – not exactly what was originally intended for their role. (A significant portion of our Revolutionary Army was made up of independent local militia groups, sometimes operating alongside Washington’s army but also working independently in the local countryside.)
(#17) “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise such Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Congress is the landlord over Washington D.C. as a sort of “neutral zone” independent of any state (similar to the land in New York City where the United Nations sits). It also has superseding jurisdiction over property owned by the Federal government across the country – post offices, federal courthouses, national parks/forests, military bases, etc. This ownership issue was the basis for the first military act of the Civil War – the state of South Carolina firing on the Federal base at Fort Sumter to prevent its resupplying. Possession and separate jurisdiction are not always easy coexisting issues.
(#18) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This is the big escape clause. It works in combination with the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” in the 1st statement, and the “regulate Commerce … among the several States” in the 3rd statement. It is the clause that switches the Constitution from an objective to a subjective statement, from a literal to an interpretive criteria, from a static document to a fluid, evolving one.
All of these Constitutional powers leave the “how” unspecified and simply provide a framework for decision specificity. The majority of our commerce in now interstate, if not international. I live in North Carolina, have medical insurance through my state retirement program in Massachusetts, which is delivered by CVS headquartered in Woonsocket, RI and UniCare headquartered in Indianapolis, IN. Yet, for example, Obamacare opponents claim that Congress had no right to pass legislation prescribing individual health care, even under the interstate commerce clause. Only a potentially ideological and politicized Supreme Court could strike the law down on any supposed “constitutional grounds” – and well they might, given their track record this past decade.
With “provide for the … General Welfare,” any number of good and bad ideas can be argued to fit under that umbrella, and have been. And your ideas for “general welfare” are unlikely to be the same as mine. So resolving this question can never truly be an act of the Court, but must always be a Congressional act reflecting the current mood of the people (or the mood of Congress!). Which leads us to statement #18 – “make all Laws necessary and proper to execute these Powers.” “All” is a lot of laws. “Necessary” can reflect many different potential ways to get to a particular end. “Proper” reflects a perspective of our values and experiences – which is a perspective unique to each of our individual backgrounds. What is “permissible” for government’s role in our society could fill a suggestion box the size of a football stadium.
We can, should, and will have never-ending debates about what our Federal government’s role should be, either in general or as regards a particular issue seeking resolution. What we need to stop doing is pretending that our Constitution says things it actually does not, that it prohibits things it actually does not, that there is any such thing as a “strict constructionist” regarding an unrestricted meaning, or that “activist judges” are simply ones who interpret a law differently than we would. Our Constitution is a framework, a guideline, not a narrow law. It is up to us to determine, case by case, in our current time, how it can guide us to the best possible decisions. Just as with our important spiritual texts, the realization of its spirit is not in the words, but is in our hands.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Jobs Of Government - Part 1
Another of our ongoing current political controversies is the role government should play in the economy, and what should be its proper scope of responsibilities. Some would have the government do virtually nothing at all; others see government as a principal player in our American economy. Some feel that our economy would be just fine “if government would just get out of the way.” Others have grave doubts about the outcomes and track record of an economy left in the hands of unrestrained businesspeople to direct. Implicitly, the proper role of government in the economy will prove to be a major deciding point in this upcoming election. In deference to the constitutional literalists among us, let’s start to try to resolve this disagreement by going back to our Constitution and reminding ourselves what our Constitution mandates that our government does.
There are 18 statements regarding the powers granted to Congress, and by extension to the federal government, in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. (Some of those 18 statements contain multiple assignments of power embedded in one paragraph, for some unknown editorial slight-of-hand!) The reality is that these powers are specific statements regarding a general responsibility whose details are as broad and varying as one chooses to read into them. The truth is, the powers of the government are not in the narrowness of the words, with all the many limitations of language that are inherent in the use of words. The true powers are in the spirit and interpretation of the Constitution in response to the needs of the people as they emerge. That is what is so maddening about the nonsensical “strict constructionist versus living constitution” debate that permeates many constitutional discussions. That is why we have a Congress to write specific laws to effect those broadly defined powers, an executive branch to create rules and mechanisms for translating those laws into everyday realities, and courts to determine whether the end result is still in reasonable and consistent conformity with the original constitutional guidelines. Those 18 statements are:
(#1) “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” So Congress defines and collects taxes and tariffs, and is expected to pay the debts of the government. (Sounds reasonable today, but obligating the federal government to paying the country’s debts was a big new commitment in 1787.) “Providing for the common Defence” means keeping us as a group reasonably safe from potential harm. That means not only in the obvious times of war with others, but also from those who today would harm us in other equally destructive ways. Which is why we now have such things as the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Center for Disease Control CDC) and the OSHA workplace safety act. These are agencies I have no interest in eliminating (though their processes used should always be subject to oversight discussion) because unscrupulous people and our complex retail systems today have the capacity to commit great individual as well as widespread harm to the citizenry. And as an individual I have minimal defenses against such mass attacks to my safety as can now be perpetrated. But it is that “general Welfare” thing, and the possible governmental roles and responsibilities that it enables, that keeps our discussions lively – an eight-lane expressway through the narrow countryside of the “limited role” viewpoint. (More about this later.)
(#2) “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Obviously we do that well, if not to excess, precipitating the “raising the debt limit” fiasco of this past August. (#3) “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” So our commerce Department seeks out international trade agreements, with mixed success; our Interior Department has made treaties and overseen the Indian tribes and their reservations with continuing dismal and immoral failures; and regulating trade “among the several states” – the interstate commerce clause – opens quite widely a legal door to be involved in all business crossing state lines, which includes most of today’s business environment.
(#4) “To establish an uniform Rule of naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Bankruptcy laws are fairly clear, in place, and without major controversy. But in this age of illegal immigration, rules governing immigration and naturalization are rife with controversy. Especially as some states try to pass their own laws against illegal immigrants, and Congress cannot come up with a reasonable common sense plan to deal with the 12 million illegals already in the country. But it is clearly Congress’ job, not the states, and Congress is abrogating that responsibility on all fronts.
(#5) “To coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.” Plus (#6) “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” No one seems to debate much about who should be coining and protecting the integrity of our money, though over the years it has continually precipitated a number of arguments about central banks and the Federal Reserve System. We do not think much about standardized weights and measures anymore, but it was a hot topic about business honesty in 1787. An attempt to switch to the metric system 20+ years ago was an unfortunate failure; coming up with “unit cost” posting in the grocery store was a helpful step forward to promote honest price information by requiring “truth in bulk packaging.”
(#7) “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” Ben Franklin did such a good job creating the first postal system in America, and an effective communication infrastructure was deemed so important to the successful running of the country, that a postal service and the roads by which to deliver the mail was written in as a Constitutional responsibility. As much as some business people and politicians may complain about our post office, eliminating it is not a legal option. And the Fedex / UPS private business model is not an alternative; who thinks these companies have any interest whatsoever in delivering my daily mail up a back dirt road in the remote mountains of North Carolina? And UPS already now pays the US Postal Service to deliver their packages to such remote locations!
(#8) “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The need, the right, to copyright and patent protection was clearly understood by these educated framers of our Constitution in order to advance the progress and learning of society. Protecting those rights from international piracy is critical. Trampling on Internet freedom by arbitrarily shutting down web sites by government prerogative as is currently proposed is a well-intended but really lousy idea. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am saying this as a copyright owner.)
(#9) “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” We have an extensive multi-layered system of federal judicial review in place. What we do not have is a Senate that exercises its responsibility to approve/disapprove presidential appointments to that judiciary on a timely basis (as well as with executive department heads) due to political infighting and personal ego, thereby crippling these same Tribunals. One of the numerous current disgraces of Congress.
(#10) “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Laws of Nations.” Even in this day, piracy still exists (Thank you once again Seal Team 6!). And Offenses against the Laws of Nations still occur (terrorists attack; dictators still flourish; people revolutions, and sometimes wars, are still needed, however messy and confused they may be in the short term).
There are 18 statements regarding the powers granted to Congress, and by extension to the federal government, in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. (Some of those 18 statements contain multiple assignments of power embedded in one paragraph, for some unknown editorial slight-of-hand!) The reality is that these powers are specific statements regarding a general responsibility whose details are as broad and varying as one chooses to read into them. The truth is, the powers of the government are not in the narrowness of the words, with all the many limitations of language that are inherent in the use of words. The true powers are in the spirit and interpretation of the Constitution in response to the needs of the people as they emerge. That is what is so maddening about the nonsensical “strict constructionist versus living constitution” debate that permeates many constitutional discussions. That is why we have a Congress to write specific laws to effect those broadly defined powers, an executive branch to create rules and mechanisms for translating those laws into everyday realities, and courts to determine whether the end result is still in reasonable and consistent conformity with the original constitutional guidelines. Those 18 statements are:
(#1) “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” So Congress defines and collects taxes and tariffs, and is expected to pay the debts of the government. (Sounds reasonable today, but obligating the federal government to paying the country’s debts was a big new commitment in 1787.) “Providing for the common Defence” means keeping us as a group reasonably safe from potential harm. That means not only in the obvious times of war with others, but also from those who today would harm us in other equally destructive ways. Which is why we now have such things as the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Center for Disease Control CDC) and the OSHA workplace safety act. These are agencies I have no interest in eliminating (though their processes used should always be subject to oversight discussion) because unscrupulous people and our complex retail systems today have the capacity to commit great individual as well as widespread harm to the citizenry. And as an individual I have minimal defenses against such mass attacks to my safety as can now be perpetrated. But it is that “general Welfare” thing, and the possible governmental roles and responsibilities that it enables, that keeps our discussions lively – an eight-lane expressway through the narrow countryside of the “limited role” viewpoint. (More about this later.)
(#2) “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Obviously we do that well, if not to excess, precipitating the “raising the debt limit” fiasco of this past August. (#3) “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” So our commerce Department seeks out international trade agreements, with mixed success; our Interior Department has made treaties and overseen the Indian tribes and their reservations with continuing dismal and immoral failures; and regulating trade “among the several states” – the interstate commerce clause – opens quite widely a legal door to be involved in all business crossing state lines, which includes most of today’s business environment.
(#4) “To establish an uniform Rule of naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Bankruptcy laws are fairly clear, in place, and without major controversy. But in this age of illegal immigration, rules governing immigration and naturalization are rife with controversy. Especially as some states try to pass their own laws against illegal immigrants, and Congress cannot come up with a reasonable common sense plan to deal with the 12 million illegals already in the country. But it is clearly Congress’ job, not the states, and Congress is abrogating that responsibility on all fronts.
(#5) “To coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.” Plus (#6) “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” No one seems to debate much about who should be coining and protecting the integrity of our money, though over the years it has continually precipitated a number of arguments about central banks and the Federal Reserve System. We do not think much about standardized weights and measures anymore, but it was a hot topic about business honesty in 1787. An attempt to switch to the metric system 20+ years ago was an unfortunate failure; coming up with “unit cost” posting in the grocery store was a helpful step forward to promote honest price information by requiring “truth in bulk packaging.”
(#7) “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” Ben Franklin did such a good job creating the first postal system in America, and an effective communication infrastructure was deemed so important to the successful running of the country, that a postal service and the roads by which to deliver the mail was written in as a Constitutional responsibility. As much as some business people and politicians may complain about our post office, eliminating it is not a legal option. And the Fedex / UPS private business model is not an alternative; who thinks these companies have any interest whatsoever in delivering my daily mail up a back dirt road in the remote mountains of North Carolina? And UPS already now pays the US Postal Service to deliver their packages to such remote locations!
(#8) “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The need, the right, to copyright and patent protection was clearly understood by these educated framers of our Constitution in order to advance the progress and learning of society. Protecting those rights from international piracy is critical. Trampling on Internet freedom by arbitrarily shutting down web sites by government prerogative as is currently proposed is a well-intended but really lousy idea. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am saying this as a copyright owner.)
(#9) “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” We have an extensive multi-layered system of federal judicial review in place. What we do not have is a Senate that exercises its responsibility to approve/disapprove presidential appointments to that judiciary on a timely basis (as well as with executive department heads) due to political infighting and personal ego, thereby crippling these same Tribunals. One of the numerous current disgraces of Congress.
(#10) “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Laws of Nations.” Even in this day, piracy still exists (Thank you once again Seal Team 6!). And Offenses against the Laws of Nations still occur (terrorists attack; dictators still flourish; people revolutions, and sometimes wars, are still needed, however messy and confused they may be in the short term).
(End Part 1 of a 2-part posting.)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Election 2012 - Surveying The Field
Barack Obama has to be enjoying the benefits of the current confusion within the Republican Party. Congress spent 2011 accomplishing virtually nothing but convincing the American People of their incompetency. Frozen in place, nothing of substance passed. The fiasco of debt ceiling brinkmanship last August; the complete breakdown of the “Super Committee” that was supposed to save the economic day; the political theater of the end-of-year budget battle over Republicans’ refusal to extend unemployment compensation and Medicare vendor payments and tax cuts for the middle class that handed Democrats a big Christmas gift for use this Fall. No wonder only @15% of Americans think Congress is doing a good job, and 75% want the whole bunch of them replaced – most of them including their own congressperson!
But Congress’ ineptness pales when compared to the pre-primary race for the Republican nomination for President. June through December 2011 was one long circus – great for entertainment value; weekly content for Saturday Night Live; not so good on substance and leadership potential. It is amazing to many people that these are the best we could come up with as hopefuls to be President of the United States and preeminent world leader. To wit:
Chris Christy, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee: all surveyed the scene and said, “no thanks, at least not this year,” in spite of entreaties for them to run.
Donald Trump: Really? A “candidate?” Trump continues to show that he is the master manipulator of the news media, with the least amount of real substance, laughing at all of us in the privacy of his office. The never-serious candidate found many ways to keep himself in the headlines he so dearly loves.
Tim Pawlenty: Never even made it to the first vote before he bailed out. Given the way it has played out, he probably should have thought twice about that decision.
Michele Bachman: Won the meaningless Iowa straw poll in August, and within weeks sunk out of sight as other candidates took her thunder. Has not been a real factor for months. Her lack of depth was fully exposed by her inaccurate and outlandish statements which finally thankfully pushed her from the stage.
Herman Cain: Three accusations of sexual harassment were two too many; a decade-long affair finally cleared away the smoke and exposed the fire. His momentary 15 minutes of fame was fourteen too many, and showed how little capability is required to become a celebrity these days. 90-year-old Henry Kissinger as his proposed Secretary of State? Really, Herman?
Rick Perry: He was 2012’s version of 2008’s Fred Thompson. The supposedly “true conservative” with deep pockets rode in on his white horse to save the Party from a [gasp] “moderate” frontrunner. And just like Thompson, Perry got up on center stage and ran a totally inept campaign featuring lackluster personal skills. Perry became the late-night talk show joke and never recovered. Too many GWBush “everyman” comparisons.
Newt Gingrich: Too much baggage; too disorganized; his time has passed. John Bolton, the archetypical neo-con Middle East war hawk, as his proposed Secretary of State? Worse than Cain’s Kissinger proposal; Newt lost me right there. Tons of ideas, maybe the most creative thinker in the field. But once he decided a few years ago to come back into political racing, his creativity gave way to “afternoons at the Tea Party” / Fox News verbiage; just another political panderer. Always entertaining, and done a better job of controlling his tongue. But he’s shown that he is still incapable of leadership.
Rick Santorum: Surprised everyone in Iowa. But it was probably just his turn in the rotation, the last one left to take center stage for non-Romneyites to turn to. Darling of the social-agenda Right, the man is unfortunately a spokesperson for the “dividers” in this country. No doubt a decent, well-intentioned person, but he lives in a naïve, narrow slice of the world, unaware of how the rest of America lives.
Ron Paul: The most principled candidate in terms of being consistently true to his deeply considered ideas. Refuses to change his message to fit the audience of the moment. There are some parts of his message that I am comfortable with, especially in rethinking war and foreign policy. But his radical change for government’s role and services has no transition plan. It would shock this country to far/too fast to absorb. Nevertheless, the dismissal and ignoring of his candidacy by the news media throughout 2011 was despicable.
Mitt Romney: The darling of the “establishment” Republicans. But I do not like his opportunist candidacy in 2012 any more than I did on 2008. He is the artificial man of no core political principles, the complete opposite of Ron Paul. As David Letterman remarked, “Mitt has changed positions so many times he’s going to start running attack ads against himself!” Mitt claims all his “business experience and job creation history” as the answer to America’s economic woes. Truth is, Mitt has not really run any businesses. His experience has been all in buying, restructuring and selling struggling or under-valued companies, with likely as many jobs lost as gained. Regardless, any job creation would have been an afterthought, not an intention. Romney’s business experience has been about “flipping” companies the way people buy up depressed homes, make cosmetic changes, and flip them over to a new buyer at inflated pieces; just another form of a pyramid scheme. No long-term ownership; no personal investment in the outcome; just companies as “tradable commodities,” a view of business from the 1990s that has caused serious damage to our economy. And that is how he is approaching his candidacy – the presidency as another commodity to buy, rework, sell and then move on, just as he did as Massachusetts Governor. It is not about public service; it is just another corporate takeover. If I am looking for business experience in a candidate, this is not the experience I am looking for. 75% of Republicans do not want him; how someone that has never had greater than 25% support can be anointed “the front runner” is beyond me. He is the richest candidate to ever run for office, and like Santorum the most disconnected from the reality of the breadth of the American citizenry. It is completely incomprehensible to me how evangelical and Tea Party Republicans could ever pull that lever.
Jon Huntsman: Which leaves us with a near invisible candidate who will likely be gone from the race by the end of January, yet is the best man in the field but with no chance at the nomination. If it is all about picking “who can best beat Obama,” Huntsman would provide the most challenging battle. He is a very straight talking candidate who does not tolerate the usual media and political silliness, and has some very thoughtful and supportable ideas. But he is a “moderate Republican,” a disappearing anachronism in 2012 Republican Party politics. Look for him potentially in 2016.
Depending on how South Carolina and Florida results turn out, the Republican primary season could be realistically all over by the end of this month. That would be another sad, but perhaps fitting, commentary to this year’s election process. That would make “establishment Republicans” very happy, but where is the near-invisible Tea Party movement that was so dominant in 2010?
But Congress’ ineptness pales when compared to the pre-primary race for the Republican nomination for President. June through December 2011 was one long circus – great for entertainment value; weekly content for Saturday Night Live; not so good on substance and leadership potential. It is amazing to many people that these are the best we could come up with as hopefuls to be President of the United States and preeminent world leader. To wit:
Chris Christy, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee: all surveyed the scene and said, “no thanks, at least not this year,” in spite of entreaties for them to run.
Donald Trump: Really? A “candidate?” Trump continues to show that he is the master manipulator of the news media, with the least amount of real substance, laughing at all of us in the privacy of his office. The never-serious candidate found many ways to keep himself in the headlines he so dearly loves.
Tim Pawlenty: Never even made it to the first vote before he bailed out. Given the way it has played out, he probably should have thought twice about that decision.
Michele Bachman: Won the meaningless Iowa straw poll in August, and within weeks sunk out of sight as other candidates took her thunder. Has not been a real factor for months. Her lack of depth was fully exposed by her inaccurate and outlandish statements which finally thankfully pushed her from the stage.
Herman Cain: Three accusations of sexual harassment were two too many; a decade-long affair finally cleared away the smoke and exposed the fire. His momentary 15 minutes of fame was fourteen too many, and showed how little capability is required to become a celebrity these days. 90-year-old Henry Kissinger as his proposed Secretary of State? Really, Herman?
Rick Perry: He was 2012’s version of 2008’s Fred Thompson. The supposedly “true conservative” with deep pockets rode in on his white horse to save the Party from a [gasp] “moderate” frontrunner. And just like Thompson, Perry got up on center stage and ran a totally inept campaign featuring lackluster personal skills. Perry became the late-night talk show joke and never recovered. Too many GWBush “everyman” comparisons.
Newt Gingrich: Too much baggage; too disorganized; his time has passed. John Bolton, the archetypical neo-con Middle East war hawk, as his proposed Secretary of State? Worse than Cain’s Kissinger proposal; Newt lost me right there. Tons of ideas, maybe the most creative thinker in the field. But once he decided a few years ago to come back into political racing, his creativity gave way to “afternoons at the Tea Party” / Fox News verbiage; just another political panderer. Always entertaining, and done a better job of controlling his tongue. But he’s shown that he is still incapable of leadership.
Rick Santorum: Surprised everyone in Iowa. But it was probably just his turn in the rotation, the last one left to take center stage for non-Romneyites to turn to. Darling of the social-agenda Right, the man is unfortunately a spokesperson for the “dividers” in this country. No doubt a decent, well-intentioned person, but he lives in a naïve, narrow slice of the world, unaware of how the rest of America lives.
Ron Paul: The most principled candidate in terms of being consistently true to his deeply considered ideas. Refuses to change his message to fit the audience of the moment. There are some parts of his message that I am comfortable with, especially in rethinking war and foreign policy. But his radical change for government’s role and services has no transition plan. It would shock this country to far/too fast to absorb. Nevertheless, the dismissal and ignoring of his candidacy by the news media throughout 2011 was despicable.
Mitt Romney: The darling of the “establishment” Republicans. But I do not like his opportunist candidacy in 2012 any more than I did on 2008. He is the artificial man of no core political principles, the complete opposite of Ron Paul. As David Letterman remarked, “Mitt has changed positions so many times he’s going to start running attack ads against himself!” Mitt claims all his “business experience and job creation history” as the answer to America’s economic woes. Truth is, Mitt has not really run any businesses. His experience has been all in buying, restructuring and selling struggling or under-valued companies, with likely as many jobs lost as gained. Regardless, any job creation would have been an afterthought, not an intention. Romney’s business experience has been about “flipping” companies the way people buy up depressed homes, make cosmetic changes, and flip them over to a new buyer at inflated pieces; just another form of a pyramid scheme. No long-term ownership; no personal investment in the outcome; just companies as “tradable commodities,” a view of business from the 1990s that has caused serious damage to our economy. And that is how he is approaching his candidacy – the presidency as another commodity to buy, rework, sell and then move on, just as he did as Massachusetts Governor. It is not about public service; it is just another corporate takeover. If I am looking for business experience in a candidate, this is not the experience I am looking for. 75% of Republicans do not want him; how someone that has never had greater than 25% support can be anointed “the front runner” is beyond me. He is the richest candidate to ever run for office, and like Santorum the most disconnected from the reality of the breadth of the American citizenry. It is completely incomprehensible to me how evangelical and Tea Party Republicans could ever pull that lever.
Jon Huntsman: Which leaves us with a near invisible candidate who will likely be gone from the race by the end of January, yet is the best man in the field but with no chance at the nomination. If it is all about picking “who can best beat Obama,” Huntsman would provide the most challenging battle. He is a very straight talking candidate who does not tolerate the usual media and political silliness, and has some very thoughtful and supportable ideas. But he is a “moderate Republican,” a disappearing anachronism in 2012 Republican Party politics. Look for him potentially in 2016.
Depending on how South Carolina and Florida results turn out, the Republican primary season could be realistically all over by the end of this month. That would be another sad, but perhaps fitting, commentary to this year’s election process. That would make “establishment Republicans” very happy, but where is the near-invisible Tea Party movement that was so dominant in 2010?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Why Big Corporations Are Failing - 2
I grew up in a small city of 65,000 people. It was a city where almost every store was owned locally. The first franchise restaurant did not show up until I was a teenager (“Sandy’s”, a 15-cent precooked hamburger chain long disappeared). Many of the places we shopped were also clients of my father’s CPA firm. The drugstore a few blocks away was where I could go on my own to get a fudgcicle, or buy a gift for a family member – on credit, even as an eight year old, because I personally knew the druggist/owner. If one ever had a service or merchandise problem with any store, you could always talk directly to the owner or an employee able to resolve it with you directly. It may sound like I am describing a foreign planet, or a fictional episode from “The Waltons” TV show. But it was part of my real life.
Fast forward to 2011. In my rural county in western North Carolina, there are two Subways and one Hardees, two branches of a regional chain grocery store, and one Dollar Store. That is it for any non-local establishments in the entire county. But when I go out of the county as I am required to do for my quantitative or specialized shopping, it is a world filled with franchises, chains, and mega-/”big box” stores. The “local store manager” is rarely to be seen. And if you do track him/her down and speak to them, they would regularly tell you “there is nothing I can do” about your problem. Corporate policy, or even the computer programming in the cash register, dictates all. Numerous franchise owners, in fact, are financial investors, rarely setting foot in the actual stores to provide the service. Many store managers do not really manage; they simply execute instructions sent by some distant authority.
But that is only when you can actually walk into a real store. More and more of the products we receive come from non-storefronts – real or quasi-utilities (utility providers, cable companies) or “online stores.” For most of these, there is no interaction at all; we just pay the monthly bill or click on visual images of the actual products we want. When real service is required, the only option is by phone or perhaps email. The voice/writer may be able to walk you through a preset process, but rarely is actually able to truly change your situation. It is a disempowered voice which all too often many companies put into place to prevent you from talking to someone with actual authority to alter “corporate policy.” They may be given any number of official sounding job titles, but these titles are a corporate scheme designed to further the image of these service representatives, not to give them any real authority.
Each of us can easily recite a litany of bad, frustrating, unproductive customer service experiences we have had. Sometimes it may be that, for whatever reason, someone is simply being an unhelpful jerk. But most often it is a structural problem that is choking big corporate America. As a result of franchising, corporate mergers and reorganizations, and an over-emphasis on stock prices and executive compensation instead of “product” (see previous blog), the disconnect between consumers and corporate owners/executives continues to grow wider. And the promise of “improved connection and communication via the internet” is not helping; it is in fact a growing inhibitor to communication masquerading as “friending on Facebook.”
I cannot begin to fathom how many layers of people and offices (or subsidiary companies) exist between me and the CEOs of the companies that I buy from. Have you ever tried to look up the name and mailing address of one of those CEOs? Good luck. The answer is typically so buried, so obscure that the walls of secrecy surrounding that individual are designed to keep me away from that person, not to facilitate conversation between us.
So I have an American provider of satellite internet services who outsourced their help desk to representatives in India with whom you cannot have a human conversation. This company has tied those well-meaning people to a preset rigid script they must follow in exact sequence in all circumstances regardless of my individual needs or situation. The result was a phone call to change my billing address that took 30 minutes to complete instead of the 5 minutes it should have required. (I am in the process of changing my internet provider.) I once ordered a Dell computer advertised as “totally customized and built to my specific needs.” Except they did not tell me until the end of the ordering process it would take 4 weeks to deliver it. Nor did they give me a head’s up advance notice when they back-ordered it for an additional 4-6 week delay. (I cancelled the order and bought something else.) There is the finance company with whom I am currently negotiating a mortgage refinance, or the health insurance company picking and choosing what costs are covered or not. Both of these companies are set up to prevent me from talking directly to the actual decision-makers; instead I talk to (mostly) friendly-sounding go-betweens unable to operate outside of their tightly constricted box or make any decision. Or I talk to computer programmers to get a billing problem resolved, because the billing system has gotten beyond the ability of business office human beings to interpret or manage it. I repeat my story to six different people because the corporation has grown so large that the individual parts cannot communicate or work together anymore.
These are just tip-of-the-iceberg examples of my experiences. Any reader can easily provide a litany of their own experiences. But the point of this discussion is not the individual occurrences; it is the near-universal number of people with negative experiences from an increasing number of transactions in our lives. It is the increasing level of effort required to fix service problems when things go wrong, or (heaven forbid) we want a product or service outside the same, narrowly defined options offered by each vendor. It is the growing disconnect we feel between us and the people who are supposed to service us. Ultimately, it is disconnection, whether towards corporate or government or other institutions, that fuels the anger that drives people into Tea Parties or tents on Wall Street.
After the “product” issues discussed in my last blog, “standard model / fixed process / customer non-service” is the second key failing of big corporate America. Fortunately, there are still some corporations who get this, manage to avoid this failure (continued thanks, L. L. Bean!), and who see the profitable opportunity of truly good customer service and then operate accordingly. They successfully exploit the gap between the usual promise and actual reality of corporate responsiveness. We need to find those corporations and support them with our trade and dollars. Or wherever possible, seek out our few local businesses, talk to the real people who work there, and support the very difficult endeavor they are making. Most of them understand that it is not about focusing on tax breaks and stock prices. It is still all about product and service, not gimmicks.
Fast forward to 2011. In my rural county in western North Carolina, there are two Subways and one Hardees, two branches of a regional chain grocery store, and one Dollar Store. That is it for any non-local establishments in the entire county. But when I go out of the county as I am required to do for my quantitative or specialized shopping, it is a world filled with franchises, chains, and mega-/”big box” stores. The “local store manager” is rarely to be seen. And if you do track him/her down and speak to them, they would regularly tell you “there is nothing I can do” about your problem. Corporate policy, or even the computer programming in the cash register, dictates all. Numerous franchise owners, in fact, are financial investors, rarely setting foot in the actual stores to provide the service. Many store managers do not really manage; they simply execute instructions sent by some distant authority.
But that is only when you can actually walk into a real store. More and more of the products we receive come from non-storefronts – real or quasi-utilities (utility providers, cable companies) or “online stores.” For most of these, there is no interaction at all; we just pay the monthly bill or click on visual images of the actual products we want. When real service is required, the only option is by phone or perhaps email. The voice/writer may be able to walk you through a preset process, but rarely is actually able to truly change your situation. It is a disempowered voice which all too often many companies put into place to prevent you from talking to someone with actual authority to alter “corporate policy.” They may be given any number of official sounding job titles, but these titles are a corporate scheme designed to further the image of these service representatives, not to give them any real authority.
Each of us can easily recite a litany of bad, frustrating, unproductive customer service experiences we have had. Sometimes it may be that, for whatever reason, someone is simply being an unhelpful jerk. But most often it is a structural problem that is choking big corporate America. As a result of franchising, corporate mergers and reorganizations, and an over-emphasis on stock prices and executive compensation instead of “product” (see previous blog), the disconnect between consumers and corporate owners/executives continues to grow wider. And the promise of “improved connection and communication via the internet” is not helping; it is in fact a growing inhibitor to communication masquerading as “friending on Facebook.”
I cannot begin to fathom how many layers of people and offices (or subsidiary companies) exist between me and the CEOs of the companies that I buy from. Have you ever tried to look up the name and mailing address of one of those CEOs? Good luck. The answer is typically so buried, so obscure that the walls of secrecy surrounding that individual are designed to keep me away from that person, not to facilitate conversation between us.
So I have an American provider of satellite internet services who outsourced their help desk to representatives in India with whom you cannot have a human conversation. This company has tied those well-meaning people to a preset rigid script they must follow in exact sequence in all circumstances regardless of my individual needs or situation. The result was a phone call to change my billing address that took 30 minutes to complete instead of the 5 minutes it should have required. (I am in the process of changing my internet provider.) I once ordered a Dell computer advertised as “totally customized and built to my specific needs.” Except they did not tell me until the end of the ordering process it would take 4 weeks to deliver it. Nor did they give me a head’s up advance notice when they back-ordered it for an additional 4-6 week delay. (I cancelled the order and bought something else.) There is the finance company with whom I am currently negotiating a mortgage refinance, or the health insurance company picking and choosing what costs are covered or not. Both of these companies are set up to prevent me from talking directly to the actual decision-makers; instead I talk to (mostly) friendly-sounding go-betweens unable to operate outside of their tightly constricted box or make any decision. Or I talk to computer programmers to get a billing problem resolved, because the billing system has gotten beyond the ability of business office human beings to interpret or manage it. I repeat my story to six different people because the corporation has grown so large that the individual parts cannot communicate or work together anymore.
These are just tip-of-the-iceberg examples of my experiences. Any reader can easily provide a litany of their own experiences. But the point of this discussion is not the individual occurrences; it is the near-universal number of people with negative experiences from an increasing number of transactions in our lives. It is the increasing level of effort required to fix service problems when things go wrong, or (heaven forbid) we want a product or service outside the same, narrowly defined options offered by each vendor. It is the growing disconnect we feel between us and the people who are supposed to service us. Ultimately, it is disconnection, whether towards corporate or government or other institutions, that fuels the anger that drives people into Tea Parties or tents on Wall Street.
After the “product” issues discussed in my last blog, “standard model / fixed process / customer non-service” is the second key failing of big corporate America. Fortunately, there are still some corporations who get this, manage to avoid this failure (continued thanks, L. L. Bean!), and who see the profitable opportunity of truly good customer service and then operate accordingly. They successfully exploit the gap between the usual promise and actual reality of corporate responsiveness. We need to find those corporations and support them with our trade and dollars. Or wherever possible, seek out our few local businesses, talk to the real people who work there, and support the very difficult endeavor they are making. Most of them understand that it is not about focusing on tax breaks and stock prices. It is still all about product and service, not gimmicks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)