Capitalism and Patriotism

This will be the third (and final, for now) part in my recent discussion of capitalism.

I would imagine that the following definition of capitalism would be accepted by most as accurate: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. 

I would also imagine that the vast majority of people would respond that capitalism is a key element to the success and growth of America. In contrast to most people's perception of socialism or communism, capitalism provides us with a means for individual success (or failure) based on competition with others in a fair market environment. The concept appeals perfectly with the American belief in the strength of the individual to pull up his boot straps and make it on his own. It also ties in nicely with our faith that our god will reward those who help themselves.

As I have said before in reference to other large topics, capitalism is the worst economic system, except for every other one. What I mean with those words, is that no economic system is perfect because its execution is dependent upon men, therefore all economic systems have their flaws. In the case of capitalism, many consider it the least worst when compared to others.

Yea, I know, words, words, words.

Lets look at it this way then. As a husband or wife, you love your spouse. As a parent, you love your children. As a brother or sister, you love your siblings. As a true friend, you love those few lifelong friends. Yet, there may be times when you are critical of your spouse, children, brother, or friend. When you feel compelled, out of that love, to express criticism of their actions or choices, constructive criticism, to help them get back to a path that will promote happiness rather than sadness.

But what method of criticism is there for an economic system (or any system) when it begins to harm the very people it should help? When its execution has evolved into a system where too many cards are held by too few players?

Like a family, it is generally accepted that the more effective criticism will come from within. Parent to child, brother to brother. In the case of capitalism then, it seems clear that the best form of criticism should emanate from the citizens who exist within its system. Like your family, when you hear criticism of your brother, you instinctively defend him, even if the faults described are true. So it follows that a Marxist pointing out the problems with capitalism will be demonized, his words ignored regardless of their accuracy.

I have a nagging suspicion that our current perception of capitalism has become immune to criticism because it has reached an almost religious status among its adherents. It has become beyond reproach. Expressing a negative opinion has become tantamount to hating America; those who do not support capitalism are not patriotic. And that is the danger.

Today's form of capitalism, has taken the belief in the individual and conferred it on a belief in a corporation. It has taken the faith that profit is the reward for success, and allowed it to become the only measure of success. It has evolved into the most basest form of the strong over the weak, and then, with a cynical connection to religion, determined that the weak deserved their fate because they are lazy, uninspired, unloved by god.

By granting the rights of individuals to corporations, we are assuming that they will act as collective people. But as I have pointed out in capitalism and profit, they do not treat their employees as people but as liabilities. All obstacles to a higher profit margin need to be addressed, even if those obstacles are the very people who do the work of the corporation. What else explains today's rising stock market, higher corporate profits yet continued unemployment?

In my mind, today's form of capitalism is anti-American, anti-patriotic. When a multi-national company is allowed to reap billions of dollars in profit yet pick and choose which country it shall pay taxes to, it has become anti-American. When any corporation places its own profit margin over the welfare of its employees, and even rewards its executives when they achieve those margins, by any means, it has become anti-patriotic.

Patriotism includes the concept of self-sacrifice. I am not a big believer in war, but have great respect for those who serve in our military because they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Why then do we not expect our corporations to sacrifice a few percentage points of profit to employ some more people or keep prices to the consumer in check?

When does profit become anti-American? When gas prices increase 25% while energy companies achieve record profits? When the very people who need health care services the most are the first to be denied health care insurance by an industry that turns billions of dollars in profit per quarter? When those making minimum wage are asked to do with a little less while those making $1250 per hour are exempted?

I think we need to turn a page in our adoration of capitalism, discuss frankly its problems, and act as a family to make corrections to its tenets that ultimately do not help America as a whole but instead reward too small a segment at the expense of too many.

And in doing so, demonstrate that we love our country more than we love capitalism, or corporations, or profit.

Capitalism and Corporate Profits

On vacation this week; our annual Poconos family vacation/reunion. Attendees are from five states (including Pennsylvania), include direct family, girlfriends of family, in-laws of family, friends of family, and lots of family. Last night we all went out to dinner together; 28 people, ranging in age from 2 to 85. Really cool.

Part one of my three part capitalism series detailed my view of the current state of capitalism as it relates to employment. Part two will review capitalism and corporate profits in today's environment.

In addition to the Philadelphia Inquirer, I also deliver the Wall Street Journal and the weekly Bloomberg Business Magazine. Occasionally, I glance through these publications, as well as reading the Inquirer's business section. To be fair, my interest in business is not a primary driving force for me. As I have said before, I admire those entrepreneurs who risk their time, money and (at times) home and family, to create and grow a business. Most of the opinions I am about to express are not directed to these small business persons. They still reflect the exercise of capitalism that existed in the post World War II years right up until the dawn of the multi-national corporation. It is in the continued growth of small businesses and their ability to create jobs that I feel we should direct more of our national resources.

I can not say that about capitalism and corporate profits. As stated above, I am aware of the business world via the reading matter mentioned already, as well as Internet searches for information related to these blogs. As always, I encourage anyone who reads my writing to corroborate what I write via the business news of your choice. What I am finding is that corporate profits are doing very well in this post-recession period. Second quarter numbers indicate much higher profits across the board for most reporting companies. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that I would prefer that our largest corporations be non-profitable. We need successful business concerns to drive our economy through invention of new technologies, the creation of new markets and opportunities and the increased employment of American workers. It is a cycle that has begun since the economic meltdown of 2008, but one which is not moving forward quickly enough.

My problem is that a significant portion of the increased profits is a result of a reduction in labor costs. I saw a report by one of the more prestigious players in the business world that estimated that 88% of the growth in GDP was going to corporate profits and only 1% to wages for employees. If we are to rely on the cycle of corporations receiving tax breaks and incentives to improve profitability so they can hire more workers then we need the beneficiaries of those activities to actually do their part. By most reputable reports, the largest corporations of America are sitting on $2 trillion of cash reserves. In other words, they have the money via profits and reserves, but are not hiring.

I maintain that they are not hiring because corporate profitability is their ONLY concern. The corporate boards and executives are only focused on meeting their targets. If it is, say 12%, and the numbers are pointing to 11.1%, the CEO and other responsible executives know they will be held accountable. (Of course, if they can’t attain that target and have to resign, they will still receive their multi-million dollar compensation packages as well as a generous parting gift, but that is grist for another blog). In the end though, decisions are made to reach that corporate profit goal, and those decisions focus first and foremost on costs. Labor costs. 

So, the labor force, the average worker who mans the assembly lines, drives the trucks, answers the phones, and, in general, makes up the vast majority of the work force for that corporation, gets reduced. Or loses a benefit. Or becomes part time. The result? The profitability number is reached, the CEO and executive board gets bonuses and unemployment/under employment in America stays unchanged.
Corporate profit has now morphed into an obstacle to higher employment rather than a creator of jobs.

To me, the mantra that reduced corporate taxes will increase employment seems outdated at best, a complete lie at worst. As long as profitability is the only yardstick, then expecting our large corporations to solve our unemployment problem is fruitless.  

I am no economist as I have said before and will say again. But my 25 years in private sector jobs tell me that companies hire more workers when the orders increase. When more people are buying sporting goods, then more workers are needed to process, pick, pack and ship those orders. When more companies are shipping orders, more workers are needed to drive the trucks to move that freight and arrange the logistics to organize the flow of that production. Businesses, whether small or large, hire employees to meet the demand of the customers. Anyone who tells you hiring is slow because employers are afraid of the future cost of health care or the potential for higher corporate taxes are reflecting a scenario that just does not blend with reality. New orders, new customers, new sales are the main driving force of new hiring. More money in the hands of everyday Americans and more jobs will help stimulate those orders and sales.

Perhaps then we should ask those various corporate CEO’s and corporate board members to reflect on their part in the cycle and whether, in the long run, today's corporate profit might actually be a roadblock to tomorrow's improvement in business and increased growth in overall revenue. If, as the conservatives claim, government stimulus is not the answer then what stimulus can/should the private sector provide to gain traction against the stagnant level of unemployment. What profits are they willing to sacrifice today, to prove that the proper exercise of capitalism will enable growth in middle class incomes resulting in increased demand for products and services tomorrow.

Newlyweds in New York

A few weeks ago, I had an in-depth discussion with an acquaintance of mine about a variety of topics, including gay marriage. Ironically, this discussion came just a day or two before the historic legalization of gay marriage in New York State.

Quick background. The gentleman in question is elderly, mid to late 70's. He is a devout Catholic who lives his life with the teachings of Jesus forefront in his mind. He attends church virtually everyday. He spent a number of years in seminary towards becoming a priest but did not pursue this call so he has a much stronger knowledge of the dogma and teachings of his religion than most. Before we broached the subject of gay marriage we had touched on many topics including politics, greed, helping the less fortunate, life choices, etc. In many areas, we were in sync with our opinions, not perfectly the same, but close in most respects. Until we hit on gay marriage.

While not one with the extreme position that gay men and women are condemned to hell for that sexual orientation, he still held firm in his belief that the gay lifestyle was a life style choice and that those with thoughts of attraction to the same sex needed to seek help to tame those urges. While he did not say they could "pray away the gay", he clearly believed that people with these desires needed to control their urges, just as a married man (or woman) needed to resist the temptation of adultery. He was not mean-spirited in his opinions of gays but stated as fact that the vast majority of societies throughout history had disapproved of same sex activities and relationships and that the very existence of the human race was dependent on marriage between man and woman.

And, of course and most importantly that God did not approve.

When I asked him how he knew that God did not approve of gay marriage, he easily cited words from various holy books, not just the bible. When I pointed out that these books were written by men, he quickly responded that they were inspired by God. While he clearly believed in the bible and its words, he was not ignorant of the holy words of the other major religions so he was not of the mindset that his religion was the only true path to God/heaven/salvation, etc. Again, he was/is a tolerant man, and in so many ways a wonderful role model. I would be hard pressed to say or think that he will not be rewarded with the salvation that he believes awaits him after death.

Yet, I also believe he is dead wrong on this issue.

So, congrats to all the gay and lesbian newlyweds who were legally married these last few days in New York. May your marriages be filled with all the happiness that you deserve for making such a commitment. May your families, neighbors and friends rejoice in your new status and celebrate with you this new privilege.

I don't envy your position. You will be judged in a different light than the heterosexual community of married couples. Your failures will be magnified, your successes ignored. You will be held to a different standard just as biracial couples were, and still are in many parts of our world.

I had another conversation along these lines just yesterday with a young woman. I stated my sincere belief that my grandchildren/her children may very well look upon this debate about gay marriage incredulously, just as we look at those same debates in our recent past that surrounded interracial marriage. She agreed, although not with the same certainty that I have. She related a story of her grandparents' children and how one of the four had turned back the clock in his perceptions of the roles of women and men. Despite having been raised in a very forward thinking environment, he was not in favor of women working outside the home. Her comments led to a discussion of individuals, as well as society's reaction to change and how a certain percentage of people will react by looking to the past for examples of how to live, rejecting the changes as too radical. In effect, finding the changes went beyond their comfort zones.

So, the pendulum swings, forward, backward. We advance, we step back and evaluate, we advance. Let's hope that we use tolerance as one of our guiding posts in this process so that regardless of whether we, as individuals are comfortable with the changes, or find ourselves seeking solace in past ways, we agree to treat those who react differently to change, as well as those who are the focus of the change, with humanity.

Recent Deficit Discussions

First, I feel like I am flattering the participants when I refer to the deficit discussions as "discussions". My American Heritage dictionary defines discussion as an earnest conversation. While no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors, especially closed doors with politicians behind them, what information we do have seems to indicate that while there may have been conversation, it did not appear to be earnest. While it is clear to me that the republican representatives were only interested in talking, not negotiating, I have also heard it said that President Obama offered to double down on the original $2 trillion dollar spending cut plan because he knew that the tax hikes he was proposing would never be agreed to by the republicans, especially the tea party republicans. In other words, he called their bluff.

What a sad state of affairs when the leaders of our country can not work together to solve our nation's problems.

I guess that cat and deer I saw working together to cross the street last week are an example not able to be matched by our elected officials.

The latest "he said what?" that I heard came from House Speaker Boehner. He said that the need to raise the debt ceiling is President Obama's doing, so he is willing to allow the debt ceiling to rise as long as his caucus has an out that they can use to save face with their constituents. It is sad that the speaker and his caucus are in this predicament as they know very well that any budget, including the one they passed earlier this year, will require an increase in the debt ceiling. To make matters worse, the extreme faction of this group wants to adopt an amendment to the constitution that would require a balanced federal budget. Really?! Considering that the military budget was just passed with an increase over last year by those very same people, it is truly amazing that their constituents don't see through their bluster about balancing the budget. As a friend recently told me, the level of economic misinformation among our citizenry is disappointing.

But getting back to the speaker's claim that the debt ceiling is the president's problem. Hmm, let me see. The debt ceiling was raised virtually every year with overwhelming republican support during the Bush years. Since 1980, the deficit itself doubled under Reagan, increased dramatically under Bush I, increased somewhat under Clinton, doubled again under Bush II and is now at a record pace under Obama. If we check who controlled congress during that same time, we find that the house of representatives was controlled by democrats more than half the time, especially during the early 1980's. But since then, it was a republican controlled house during most of Clinton's presidency and for the first 6 years of the Bush II administration.

So, it appears that the facts dispute Boehner's claim. Clearly, the current debt problem of this country is the problem of both parties. It took them both to create this debt, and it should take both to address it. Too bad that both House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Whip McConnell would rather pretend that they have not been part of the problem and allow the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own. They are clearly more concerned with playing politics than solving our problems.

It will be even more interesting how they approach the deficit and debt should we have a republican president in 2012. Perhaps those discussions will take place with adults in the room who are earnest as opposed to children who take their ball home when they don't get their way.

Capitalism and Income Distribution

If I haven't mentioned it lately, I am a sports fan and undoubtedly, I spend too much time watching sports on TV. When I read my daily newspaper, I read the sports section first. Currently, baseball is the sport in the spotlight, especially in the Philadelphia area as we are blessed with a fantastic team led by a superior pitching staff. When I watch the games, I am aware of the different pitches that these players use to retire the opposing hitters, how they look when thrown, even when and why the different types of pitches, fastball, slider, sinker, curve are thrown, and the numerous permutations of each pitch. Not to mention to where (which part of the strike zone, or even better, which part of the not-a-strike zone) the pitches are aimed. It can be a fascinating chess game withing the sport, pitcher against batter.

There is another curve, the Lorenz curve, that I wish more baseball fans, indeed more citizens were aware of. This curve is a way for economists to measure what portions of a population are responsible for the income within a group. It is the analysis of this curve that leads to statements such as 10% of the wage earners are responsible for 40% of the income. The closer the curve comes to a horizontal line, the more equally is the income distributed in that group/country. From this curve, economist then create a number called the GINI Coefficient that reflects the level of income equality, or level of income disparity depending on your perspective. The higher the GINI coefficient, the less equal is income distribution, the lower the number, the more equal.

Yea, you know where I am going with this, don't you!!

Rather than enumerating the various numbers, see below a link to the data that I found in Wikipedia which you can cut and paste it into your browser. The data sheet includes a cool interactive tool so that you can sort the various columns other than as it is listed in alphabetic order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

A quick glance at the tables show you that the GINI coefficient for the United States (just over 40) puts us just behind Sri Lanka, Georgia (the ex Soviet country), Ghana, and Turkmenistan (another ex Soviet country), and just ahead of Senegal, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burundi. We are grouped with countries not known for their economic strength, nor their human rights record.

The Nordic countries, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland have 4 of the top 8 lowest GINI scores. Japan is number two. Among others, Germany, South Korea, Turkey, Canada, France, Switzerland, Poland, Spain, Italy and the UK all have lower coefficients.

What bothers me, other than this increasing trend, is the fact that there are many people who will either deny that this situation exists, deny that it is necessarily a bad thing, and/or pretend that unregulated capitalism which results in the rich getting richer to the detriment of the rest, is not a factor of this problem.

To be fair, however, I also read an article that dismisses my belief that income inequality is a problem. This article cited numerous statistics that demonstrated that the poor in America are actually very much better off than the poor, not only in other countries, but even in comparison with the poor of past Americas, say 19th century or early 20th century America. Simple things like access to indoor plumbing, owning TV's, owning a car, having air conditioning, etc. All true. Clearly, there are a host of countries (probably even countries that have lower GINI scores) where the truly poor live in squalid conditions that are far worse than anything in America.

But for me, showing me a picture of the living conditions in some sub-Saharan country and saying, see, our poor don't have it so bad, is an incredibly limited yardstick. How do our poor stack up against those in countries more like ours, say Germany or Japan? Besides, we all know that any comparison is relative. In a place where the average income is $30 a month, someone making $60 is well off. But in America, the average yearly wage is in the upper $40's to low $50's so someone earning $8 per hour (about $16K per year) is poor in comparison, whether or not they own an air conditioner.

Regardless of what some people might say, more equal wealth and income distribution is not the same as exactly equal. I am not advocating that everyone should earn the same salary regardless of position or contribution. There are people who clearly do not participate in our economy and our goal should be to provide the tools, such as education, skills training, and yes, temporary economic assistance, so that they can become productive members of our nation.

But how do we justify when someone earns 100, 300, even 1000 times the salary of others in the same company? To illustrate how this trend to higher salaries for the top wage earners has blossomed, check out the data from the census tables which can be accessed through the following website.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.pdf

As you can see, the first chart details that 5% of families earned over $200K per year in 2008 while 8% earned under $15K. Even more illuminating, the second chart illustrates that in 1980, 8.8% of families earned under $15K while 13.2% earned over $100K, yet by 2008, while 8.1% still earned under $15K, a whopping 26% now earned over
$100K. Is it better for a country to have all people experience the benefits of a growing standard of living or just some?

If those earning $7.50 and hour made $10 instead while those earning $51 made $48, would the benefits of that extra money for the lower wage earners outweigh the detriments to those who saw their income drop a bit? Would it be better for America if more people felt economically comfortable? Would it hurt America if less people felt "rich"?

Perhaps the real question is, how do we redistribute income so that we maintain a strong middle class without rewarding those that do not work yet while still limiting the restrictions we place on the movers and the shakers so that they still have incentive to create. There are no easy answers, but we will never find an answer if we don't first admit that income inequality is a problem. And we will never find a solution if we continue to cling to the near religious belief that capitalism is a perfect economic system.

Holidays and Labor

I missed a delivery over the weekend (I had to turn around and go back) because I was distracted. I was distracted by a cat and a deer crossing the road about 100 yards in front of me. It appeared that the cat led the way. I couldn't tell if they stayed together when they finished crossing but it made me think that if cats and deer can work together then perhaps there is hope for Democrats and Republicans as well.

Happy 4th of July.

This morning I googled "labor force" and found that the US department of labor pegs the labor force of America at approximately 153 million people. Although technically, I worked today (there are no days off in the newspaper business), I count myself as one of the majority of workers who had off today, with pay.

But not everyone who is off today, is being paid. And not everyone is off today, as one can easily see at any shopping mall in the country. The fact is, in contrast with every other "western" nation, our country does not mandate annual leave or paid holidays. No employer is compelled to offer the day that celebrates our nation's birth as a day off from work, let alone off with pay!

Fortunately, most employers do count today as a paid holiday. Statistics I found indicate that for higher wage earners, upwards of 88% have off today with pay, and for lower wage earners roughly 66%. (I couldn't find the definition of higher and lower for those percentages, but I discerned that the line is drawn around the $60K per year line). For full time workers the percentage is very high also, but only about one in three part time workers have the day off with pay.

Strangely, one of the biggest reasons why most of us have off with pay, is a result of the work of the unions which negotiated paid annual leave (among other worker benefits we take for granted) with both public and private employers during the economic boom of the 20th century. I say strangely, because unions are under attack all across the United States, especially those that represent public employees. Most recently, Wisconsin and New Jersey legislatures, pushed by Republican governors, passed laws restricting the unions' ability to negotiate benefits. Union influence has steadily waned since its heyday in the 1970's; is it a coincidence that the standard of living for the American middle class has remained static since that time?

Perhaps you will find yourself at a store today. Chances are, it will be a "chain" store as opposed to a local one as it is these chains, department stores, food stores, home improvement stores, etc that traditionally average lower wages, and poor benefits. While some of the people you encounter will be getting paid overtime for working today, the vast majority will not. And while many will have volunteered to work, a large percentage of those volunteers are, in fact, getting paid extra (which is why they volunteered), but a much larger percentage had no choice. They lost the lottery and found their name on the schedule today.

As I have written many times before, America is a great place to live and I am proud to live here. In so many countries on earth today, I would not be able to sit in front of my computer and write the words you have just read. We clearly value freedom and the right to pursue happiness as individuals.

But we can do better!! Business is all well and good but it should not be the only yard stick for our decisions. Public policies that grant all the cards to employers will only continue to erode everyday Americans' ability to enjoy the freedoms of which we are so blessed. Politicians who have no qualms about cutting wages and benefits for workers who earn less than $50K per year, yet quake and moan at the prospect of raising taxes of those earning over $500K per year or (egads!) limiting salaries to $10 million per person, are not looking after my interests, nor, in my opinion, the interests of those who comprise the backbone of this country.

So, again, happy 4th of July. I hope that you are able to enjoy the day as a paid holiday. Be careful working in the yard and grilling your meal. And, if you do go out to shop, be extra nice to the cashier or stock person or sales rep you may encounter. Remember, they are also celebrating our freedoms and our country's birth.

America at War III

Full moon on the rise in the evening, on its way down when I start my route, big, full moon set as I finish delivery. Bella luna.

I see that Congress is upset with President Obama's decision to commit United States forces in Libya. Citing the War Powers Resolution, many republicans and democrats want their say in who we bomb. Strangely, I get the impression that they want their say, not because they believe that we shouldn't be involved, as most republicans faulted Obama for not acting more quickly in the early days of the Libyan people's protests, but to merely have their opinion asked. Again, while our elected officials engage in political battles for power, even more money and resources are being expended in military conflicts.

If you haven't checked out costofwar.com please so do. It gives a running total of the cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. A total for each and a total total. Staggering!

I googled "cost of bridge repair". There were umpteen articles listed from newspapers around the country discussing the growing crisis in repairing our aging bridges a big percentage of which are in their mid 40's. One of the articles, using 2009 data, said that the cost to our states to repair its bridges had increased dramatically up to over $70 billion, but that the federal aid to help with this cost had increased only slightly, to a bit over $5 billion. It also said that much of the federal aid was generated from the gas tax, 18.4 cents per gallon, and that this tax hadn't been increased since 1993.

So assuming that an increase in the gas tax is out of the question, how many fewer bombs must we drop to divert $70 billion to the states to repair our aging infrastructure. Or, how many fewer stealth bombers must we manufacture? Or, to be positive, how many thousands of troops must we bring home from Iraq and Afghanistan? How about how many military bases must we close?

The more I research, the more I read, the more I "google", the more I believe that the war on terror is bankrupting America and that the terrorists have taken our strengths, our belief in democracy and freedom and the rights of individuals, and are using them to win the war, not through battles on the field or taking plots of land, but by causing us to divert our resources away from the welfare of our citizens into the bottomless pit of military conflict.

America at War II

As I said in my last post, I just "listened" to two books about the war in Afghanistan. Many people forget that the United States started hostilities in Afghanistan before beginning the war in Iraq and that our initial thrust into Afghanistan was limited in its scope. Special ops forces on the ground working with the native tribes to pinpoint Taliban strongholds and bomb them from above. Little direct combat by US troops, little loss of American life. Most of the infighting done by the tribal forces who were not happy with Taliban rule. And very successful. It seemed real clear that winning the fight against an embedded enemy was best accomplished through the use of those who lived in the country with the support of superior American air power and technology.

Then came the invasion of Iraq. This time, massive ground forces were used in conjunction with that now famous shock and awe air campaign, and the enemy was again, quickly subdued. While I have extreme doubts about why we needed to invade Iraq, militarily, both "wars" were extremely successful. In each case, the military objectives were quickly met.

So, why is it that we find ourselves, many years and literally, a trillion dollars after these great military successes, still involved in armed conflict in both countries, still spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq and Afghanistan?

After listening to Lone Survivor, I would bet that the author, Navy SEAL, Marcus Luttrell would say that the answer is because we didn't let the military do the job they are trained to do. We didn't let the United States military expend its full force upon those "turban heads" and kill each and every one of them. We let politicians make our war decisions when we should have been listening to military leaders.

Instead of truly embarking on a war on terror by unleashing our own unique American brand of military terror, we took our collective foot off the pedal and engaged in efforts to win hearts and minds.

We wanted the very people whose country we devastated, whose brothers and fathers we killed and wounded, whose homes we destroyed, whose economy we wrecked, to now embrace us as their saviors for ridding them of their leaders, be it the Taliban or Saddam.

We changed from being engaged in a military campaign to find and kill Osama Bin Laden, root out and emasculate Al Qaeda, scatter the Taliban to the wind, and remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction from the hands of an ego maniac to being engaged in attempts to prop up more friendly, but corrupt regimes and "nation building".

Anyone who reads me regularly may be surprised at what I have just written. So let me ask you this, is what I just wrote incorrect? Would we not have been able to kill even more terrorists, probably find Bin Laden faster, and annihilate the Taliban if we let the military have its way. If we had not grown a conscious?

And maybe we would even have all that oil bubbling under ground in Iraq as well.

What exactly, has our $1.2 trillion bought us? Peace of mind? More security? More friends in the Arab or Muslim world? If our real goal was the first two, peace and security, how much war does it take to achieve peace? How much security does killing, which always turns on the revenge instinct in humans, buy us? And if it is the third, if it is friends that we are trying to gain, then I don't see any logic to bringing death and destruction onto a country then expecting them to be happy with us.

Why is it that all those hand wringing over the national debt seems to be led by the same people who have no issues with our huge defense budget? Why aren't they lamenting that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the cost of our wars if we don't re-evaluate our use of the military?

Perhaps a better approach is a truly peaceful one. Not peace through war, peace through killing anyone with an idea, or god, or philosophy that differs from ours, but peace through cooperation. Peace through trade which is mutually beneficial. Peace through understanding ideas that seem foreign to us because killing a person for his ideas will never, ever, ever kill that idea. Peace through an open hand not a closed fist.

I am not naive enough to think that we do not need our military. There will certainly be times when our disagreements with a country or group will require a military response. But I can't imagine why we would ever need to spend billions of dollars with massive ground troop movements to express our perspective, or find a true enemy of America when we have military men and women like the aforementioned Marcus Luttrell.

America at War

Major weather front moved in a few days ago and produced grape sized hail at our house. When we ran out to the sun room to close the windows, the sound of the hail bouncing off the roof was deafening. When I ran outside to close my wife's car windows there were hard, cold, white bits of hail in the front and back seats. Such strange weather.

A friend of mine recently gave me two audio books to listen to while delivering papers. Both concerned instances which have occurred during the War in Afghanistan. "The Horse Soldiers" tells of the initial phases of the war when special op troops were deployed to assist the Afghan nationals in their war on the Taliban. This campaign of directed bombing of targets identified by these on the ground, special op warriors produced a series of incredibly swift and successful victories and eventually led to President Bush's infamous declaration that major warfare in Afghanistan was over. It is an inspiring tale of American warfare superiority and individual fortitude and heroism.

The second story is called "Lone Survivor". It takes place in 2005, two years after then President Bush's speech (see above). It details the Navy SEAL operation which claimed the lives of three of the four SEALS, then also led to the loss of life for a few dozen more special op forces helicoptered in during a rescue attempt of the original four. While it does not depict American military might in a winning form, it is an amazing recount of the bravery, courage and character of the Navy SEAL program in general and the four SEALS in particular who fought against overwhelming odds on that lonely mountaintop.

I enjoyed both audio books. They provided info on the war in Afghanistan of which I was not aware while also reminding me of the unbelievable men (and women) who comprise our military, and in particular our special ops forces. You see, it is possible for a liberal who believes that war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs to still admire the people who are asked to fight for our country. The horrible way we treated the Vietnam veterans as if it was their decision to fight that terribly wasteful war should never be repeated. The American soldier is your brother, sister, neighbor, co-worker, son or daughter, a band of patriots who so love our country and what it represents that they are willing to die for it, and whether the war they die fighting is popular or unpopular, their sacrifice is the same and should be recognized as such. As an American, I would hope we remember this when we feel the desire to castigate someone in the military, and as a liberal I expect I will always believe that the best way for me to support these American heroes is to get them home.

Olympic Bid

HOT, HOT, HOT

I wonder if those that proclaimed that climate change was fake when we had lots of snow and cold temps will reconsider their thoughts as they swelter in our current upper 90 to 100 degree weather today. Or will they say that a few days or a week of a particular weather does not prove anything. HMMM. I guess that logic didn't apply when they commented on the cold days.

It was announced today that Comcast was awarded the rights to broadcast the next four Olympic games, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020. The cost, a mere $4.4 billion. Yes, billion. Comcast news is of more interest in this area than most because it has its roots in the Philadelphia region and it is the parent company for both the 76ers basketball and Flyers hockey teams. We have watched the company grow from an obscure cable TV provider to a behemoth in the communications industry.

What is particularly noteworthy is that, as current owner of NBC corporation, Comcast knows that NBC lost over $220 million in 2010 as broadcast provider for the Vancouver Olympics yet this gigantic $4.4 billion bid, almost $1 billion more than the next bidder, was called "a path to profitability".

----

I wrote more here, and thought I posted it but apparently not as I now realize that everything after this was lost.

In a nutshell, I wrote about the fact that while Comcast, a company with Philadelphia roots is willing to invest over $4 billion dollars to broadcast the Olympics in hopes that this investment will attract viewers, hence advertisers, and justify this monstrous outlay of money, the Philadelphia school district is struggling to bridge a shortfall which has already resulted in the layoff of 1500 teachers.

I also commented about how when a business invests huge amounts of resources in hopes of future profits, when the government proposes "stimulus" spending as the Obama Administration did two years ago, there was major outcry from the right (and in some cases, the business community) claiming this was irresponsible spending. Why is investing money to attract TV dollars good business but investing money to avoid bankruptcies and home foreclosures not a good idea?

Some might answer that a poor business decision produces monetary losses while a poor economic decisions by the government just causes higher taxes. I would counter that in the case of Comcast, an Olympic failure to create profit might just result in higher cable bills down the line. I also wonder if that $220 million loss indicated above might have been used to offset profits, which means a lower tax bite which means the American taxpayer paid for that poor decision as well.

My final point was that perhaps we should embrace the beast (in this case, Comcast playing the role of the beast). If indeed, Comcast (or an huge corporation) is able to use losses as tax write-offs, then perhaps we should marry these large entities to our financially struggling school districts. Maybe that $220 million tax credit could bypass the middle man and go directly to the schools. Still a tax credit but used for a much better purpose. And maybe the kids could get free cable as well.

Widening Perspective

A beautiful week since my last post. Temps in the 50's overnight and the low 80's by day. Low humidity. Perfect weather to be outside working or playing. It is easy to understand the allure of habitats that have this weather pattern all year long. Of course, perhaps I would miss the pretty morning snow squalls that I have described in past posting. Perhaps.

For the last few weeks I have been listening to the BBC world news report from 5-6:00 AM during my morning delivery. Like the TV version, the BBC world news presents news from the perspective of the people to whom the news is occurring as opposed to so much American news which seems to focus on how the news of other places effects us.

For instance, the BBC news about Yemen presents stories describing how the violence and unrest effect the citizens of that country. How alliances have formed, broken apart and reformed as the situation has evolved. Interviews with people on the street, generals, business men, politicians, all depict the wide variety of experiences that is life in Yemen.

American news on the other hand, seems to focus on Yemen as the new hotbed for Al Qaeda. No understanding of why this may be so, just that it is.

Are we so preoccupied with ourselves, our lives, that we are unable to learn about, or even try to understand other viewpoints, other experiences?

Or perhaps, to be completely paranoid, we are kept in the dark, purposefully. It is so much easier to justify the demonification of another people or country when all we know is that they are our enemy. To make matters worse, we are all so busy, good busy with our family and friends, and just busy trying to make ends meet, that we lack the time to invest in understanding the world around us. Again, perhaps for a reason.

It reminds me of the latest hand-over-heart, America-is-the-greatest anthem that is driving a certain possible presidential candidate and has attracted a great many "patriotic" followers. But when pressed for comparisons, the most vocal of this genre have not been out of the country, don't have a working knowledge of current events in other places, can't cite statistics or facts that back up their ideology. They are proud because they were born here. When I point out that people born in other countries are just as proud of their roots and history, and that, perhaps had they been born in another place they would have just as strong a sense of pride for that country as they do for America, I am met with... well, I guess you could call it befuddlement. It is if that possibility, that someone could be born in another country, that these American patriots could have been born in another country, and actually love that country, is just not possible. Almost an alien concept.

I have said it before, and will say it again; perspective is a funny thing.

Assisted Suicide

The weather has turned dramatically hotter in the past week so that I have been delivering papers in shorts, a tee shirt and sandals, windows down much of the time. The air rushing through the car, the smells of the fields I pass, and the abundant wildlife scurrying about the land, singing in the trees, flying across my field of vision all combine to make my early morning job a pleasure.

Today, Dr. Jack Kevorkian died. For those unfamiliar with the man, he has led a personal crusade to attempt to change our society's views on euthanasia. It is said that he assisted in the deaths of over a hundred individuals, in many cases through the use of a "machine" of his own making that injected a deadly dose of drugs, controlled by the "patient". 

For his efforts, he was lauded as a visionary who so believed in the rights of individuals that he extended that belief to include the right to make the ultimate choice; how and when to die. And, for his efforts, he was labelled Dr. Death, arrested for murder more than once and finally convicted of second degree murder eventually serving eight years in prison until he was released on parole after promising not to offer his services to the dying again.

Death. 

Clearly, the concept scares us. Even Jack Kevorkian, in his final days admitted to be afraid to die. We have our beliefs that promise eternal happiness if we follow the doctrines of ones particular religion, but it is the rare person who, if honest, doesn't prefer living to dying. For all the trials and tribulations that we face during our lives, most of us would still rather face our problems, feel the pain and sorrow, and experience the bad with the good because the alternative is completely unknown, and it is the unknown that scares us. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light..." as Dylan Thomas most famously wrote.

And yet, there are rare times when death is preferable. When the physical, emotional or mental pain is so debilitating that we crave an end. We especially see this condition in those fighting the horrible manifestations of diseases such as cancer, ALS, AIDS, etc. When life has become an endless series of painful experiences, and the only relief comes from constant, heavy sedation, what is the point of continuing. 

Or when ones life partner of 30, 40, 50 years dies, taking your whole reason for living with them. 

Or when the voices in your head are so loud and so constant that the only respite is the induced calm of narcotics, or surgery. It is these situations that Dr. Kevorkian tried to address. It was those such afflicted that sought him out to appeal to his oath as a doctor and to his humanity.

Strangely, we do have a medical process to enable suicide. The DNR (do not resuscitate) document can function as a legal means to enable ones death while absolving the medical community from any claims of neglect. While we might rationalize that this is a passive kind of suicide, it is a suicide nevertheless when one considers the amazing medical breakthroughs that can extend a life.

In the end, regardless of whether you agree with his methods or not, Dr. Kevorkian put his life and reputation on the line for his beliefs. In a time when beliefs seem to change with the winds of public opinion, it is rare to find a man with such resolve. For now, one might say he dies as an infamous individual. I wonder what history will make of his life and work in 10, 20 or 30 years when more and more of us reach the time when merely being alive is not enough. When the only rage left in us is the rage to reach the light.

The Rapture

Lots of rain lately in this area. No deluges like those that have been occurring in other parts of the country but enough rain to keep the ground wet, especially in the morning, and keep the grass growing. Unfortunately, it also means I am using a lot more bags to deliver papers. This, along with the high amount of gas I must purchase, continues to bother me. I imagine that these concerns will push me to find another source of income, but I will miss the "musing" time that this early morning endeavor provides.

This past weekend, Saturday evening to be precise, was identified as a possible day to mark the beginning of an "end of the world" process that would culminate in October. Apparently, a man named Harold Camping, a fundamentalist, radio talk show host, had predicted this end some time ago. To give him credit, he included some pretty specific details so it would be obvious if he was wrong or right. And, as has been true of all previous prognostications concerning the end of the world, Mr. Camping was wrong in this case.

As a result of this not-end-of-the-world event, there were many jokes directed at both evangelicals like Harold Camping who continue to make their living by scaring people into believing their particular viewpoint is the ultimate one, and, of course, the believers themselves. But despite the fact that the sun came up on May 22nd disproving this week's end of man prediction, there will soon be another prophesy, and another end date revealed.

Science tells us that the earth has existed for a few billion years while man has only been present on earth for a few million years. A simple calculation indicates that the world (Earth) has existed without man for well over 99% of its existence. Chances are the Earth will continue rotating and revolving for quite a long time once all traces of mankind are gone so to me, all this end of the world talk should more precisely be labelled end of man talk. Perspective can be a funny thing.

Yet there is a serious side to the never ending end-of-man talk. Because the fact is, Saturday, May 21st did mark the "end of man" for approximately 150,000 humans on earth as that is the number of people who die everyday. This number includes mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and good friends. For them, the prediction was all too true. And for their families, while May 21st may not have marked a global end, it certainly changed their lives forever.

So, perhaps end of man talk can serve a positive purpose. Not by scaring us to adopt a certain faith but by reminding us how precious is life and how important are the people who share our lives. The end of man will certainly come some day, but in the meantime, the end of particular men and women will be grieved and lamented, 150,000 times a day. Perhaps we would be better prepared for that "end time" if we lived our lives by doing more to demonstrate our love, first, for those most important to us, and second for all those other fellow travelers who share our time on Earth.

The company you keep

What does China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States have in common? According to Amnesty International, these five countries lead the world in use of the death penalty with China far outpacing the other four, combined.

The reason for my research into this topic was Monday's lead article in the Inquirer which detailed a diatribe by Pennsylvania's Chief Justice Ronald Castille concerning the federal defense attorneys who recently filed a motion to stay the execution of a death row inmate. Justice Castille concluded that the exhaustive efforts being put forth by these attorneys to keep their client alive were politically motivated and represented a concerted effort on their part to sabotage the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

I sent the following letter to the Inquirer that evening.

To the editor:

Chief Justice Castille is right to be frustrated over the seemingly endless motions and appeals that occur with any ongoing death penalty case. But his anger is misdirected. Those federal defense attorneys that he accuses of engaging in "the zealous pursuit.. to impede and sabotage the death penalty" do so to guarantee their client's being treated fairly; I am sure he would expect the same dedication to duty of those on the prosecution side. Does he think these attorneys should just give up? In light of the numerous examples of death penalty convictions being overthrown due to subsequent DNA evidence, I think their continued doggedness is warranted.

The Chief Justice should be directing his anger at politicians who use support of capital punishment to project a "tough on crime" mentality to voters, the district attorneys who pursue the death penalty, and the Pennsylvania legislatures who have failed to pass a bill banning the death penalty in our state.

The death penalty has been proven over and over again to be ineffective in deterring capital crimes. That is why 15 states plus the District of Columbia have outlawed the death penalty while two more (including New Jersey) have placed a moratorium on executions. Not to mention the 95 countries worldwide including virtually all of Europe which have ceased its use.

And then there is the expense. Seeking a death penalty conviction increases the cost of trial tenfold, relieving a disproportionate amount of money from already strapped city, county and state budgets while resulting in very few actual executions; only three in PA since 1976, none since 1999. Seeking life sentences instead produces the same effective result - the removal of dangerous criminals from the streets - while freeing up money that an be used much more efficiently in the fight against crime.

---------

So, in this case, the United States shares this dubious characteristic with four of the most repressive regimes in the world, two of which are 2/3 of the "axis of evil". I imagine that we might be more aggressive in decrying the Saudi Arabian government if it wasn't for oil and the Chinese government if it wasn't for corporate America's need for cheap labor but that is grist for another blog.

Of course, I know there is a big distinction between our use of the death penalty as part of our judicial system and the use of the death penalty in those other countries for political dissidents as well as criminals. Yet, the fact remains that 95 countries in the world do not have a death penalty, including virtually all of the western world of which we claim the most similarity. We are the only NATO country still using the death penalty.

More data to consider.

Pennsylvania has 222 death row inmates (fourth highest state total), over 100 of them placed there during Lynn Abraham's tenure as district attorney of Philadelphia. As I mentioned in the letter, only 3 executions have occurred in PA since 1976, none since
1999. During that time 22 death row inmates died of natural causes.

Governor Ed Rendell signed over 100 death row warrants during his two terms as governor, despite the fact that he was aware of its lack of use. (See politicians who need to appear to be tough on crime in my letter above).

Since 1976 there have been 1251 executions in the US with Texas far out in the lead with 467 of them (about 37%). Of the 34 states which have executed criminals since 1976, Texas has put to death more than the totals of 29 of those 34 states combined. Makes you wonder if Texas has more capital crimes, more evil people or an easier path from conviction to execution.

Actual death sentences in the United States has steadily fallen since 1994 so that by 2009 it was about 1/3 of the number of 1994 (from 313 to 112).

138 death row exonerations have occurred since 1973. Remember, these are people who were convicted, sentenced to die and later found to be innocent and released. Partly as the result of research, motions and appeals by defense attorneys just like those that Chief Justice Castille railed against.

As of deterrence, there is a huge difference between number of executions in the south compared to the other regions of the US, but very little difference between murder rates. In fact, the south has one of the higher regional murder rates.

Finally, the cost is astronomical. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to prosecute and house the few thousand death row inmates. Again, money that could have been spent to combat crime.

The Energy Conundrum

I have had this story in my head for about a month now. I would hope it scares and inspires us to realize that by maintaining the energy status quo we may be forfeiting any energy independence we could gain if we don't begin the arduous path towards maximizing our energy efficiency, and seeking, supporting and perfecting alternate ways to provide our energy needs. 

                           

                              The Energy Conundrum 

King Nayef waived nonchalantly to his royal guard, indicating his permission to allow entrance for today’s visitors. The king sat comfortably at the small but elegant, hard-wood table which dominated the otherwise impressively furnished meeting room, one of six similarly fashioned meeting rooms on this floor. Only royal insignia engraved on the high-backed chair on which he reposed revealed the special nature of this particular room. 

Strange Americans, the king thought. From the days of the early struggles to find, tap and release the vast quantities of oil that lay buried in the Saudi Arabian deserts, the American companies’ superior technology and relentless work force combined with a bottomless source of government financial and military support, had tamed the harsh environment, providing the energy for the world’s industries and economies to prosper. It was a win-win situation that changed the face of the planet and made possible countless advances in the lives of everyday people, while, of course, enabling the desert nations of the Middle East and their royal rulers to attain riches beyond their wildest dreams. 

Even through the oil embargo days of the 1970’s and the severe highs and lows of the cost of oil in the early part of the 21st century, the Americans and their western allies expended massive amounts of resources to keep the oil flowing. Despite repeated warnings from their own scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels was damaging the earth’s ecosystem, they continued their dependence on oil, continued their astronomical thirst (and waste) of energy. 

The king thought of that curious American toy called the yo-yo that he had played with endlessly one summer as a child. Down goes the price of oil, up goes the sales of gas guzzling cars, SUV’s and trucks. Up comes the price of oil; up goes the sale of energy efficient and alternative energy vehicles. Down goes the price of oil again, up goes the sales of those same cars and trucks that nobody wanted just a few years before. Then, up goes the price of oil again. Up and down, up and down like a yo-yo, the pattern repeated, the gnashing of teeth when the price was high, the profligate waste when the price was low. 

The king smiled. For, despite the ups and downs of cost and supply, the money flowed continuously for his country and his family. And, when a real threat occurred to the supply of oil, the Americans were the first on the scene allocating even more resources on military interventions which toppled governments in the name of freedom all the while continuing to support those nations which guaranteed the flow of oil despite its humanitarian record of suppression of dissidents. 

Now, over a hundred years after the first oil wells of the 1930’s, the American president and his delegation were waiting for an audience to ask for an increase in the flow of energy. Again. It was as if their incredible ability to invent, perfect and bring to market the technologies that provided the mechanisms to create and harness energy was equally limited by their political will to force the citizenry to embrace the changes needed to move forward. Again, the king smiled to think that democracy was a wonderful political concept, a truly enlightened way for people to govern themselves, but nothing beat a dictatorship for making people do what was necessary to achieve a nation’s security. 

The meeting room door opened and in walked the president, his secretary of energy, the Senate majority leader and three of the most influential business leaders of the United States. The best men and women from the most powerful country in the world, and all here to promise the king anything and everything to slate their country’s never ending needs for energy. 

“Welcome my friends”, the king began. “Please, make yourselves comfortable”. The American delegation found their chairs but barely heard the king’s words. They were too distracted by the immense pictures that covered the walls on all sides of the room. First distracted, then awed when the realization struck them that these weren’t pictures but monitors. Monitors that displayed the vast solar collection fields that existed for hundreds of miles across the Arabian Desert. 

“I see you are impressed by the view”, the king said. Huge solar collectors converting the almost constant light of the sun into clean energy. Collectors invented by American companies, installed by American technicians, monitored by American engineers who controlled the transmission of the billions of megawatts through power lines invented, installed and maintained by American and German contractors. Energy which required no digging in the earth, no processing in pollution producing factories, no pumping of millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the ground. Solar technology bought and paid for with the money of the very customers who traded their dependence on oil and fossil fuels for a new dependence on an energy source that shines down for free but was deemed too costly, too ugly, and too futuristic to pursue with any conviction. 

“What can I do for you”? the king began.

Osama bin Laden

A thumbnail moon rise this past weekend followed by dramatic sun rises. I don't know why experiencing the start of a new day continues to effect me, but I certainly recommend that everyone get out of bed and watch a sunrise every once in a while. Perhaps together, we can figure out its attraction.

Clearly, the news of the day is the death of Osama bin Laden. To the brave special forces unit that executed such a daring, dangerous and precise operation, we all owe a great debt and sincere congratulations. I was especially touched by the people interviewed that lost loved ones on 9/11 and who exuded a sense of relief and closure upon hearing the news. The spontaneous celebrations in Washington DC and at ground zero, among other places, speak to the deep seated sadness that Americans have suppressed since that scary day almost 10 years ago. As is the case with all momentous events, we will all remember for the rest of our lives where we were on 9/11 and now, where we were when we heard the news of the killing of bin Laden.

Despite the realization that bin Laden may have been less involved operationally with the designs of al-Qaeda he was still the face of this movement and its spiritual leader. While his memory may still be used to inspire suicide missions, violence and destruction, his charisma and connections with those that loved him will not be easily replicated. The famous and infamous alike share a certain trait that elevate them to a unique place in history. Bin Laden had this trait which is why he generates such extreme love, and extreme hatred.

For me, the removal of someone so misguided as to think that violence and destruction somehow conformed to his religion and was blessed by his God is a good thing. Many commentators I heard today mentioned that they thought that bin Laden not only suffered a deserved, violent death and less than desirable burial, but that he certainly faced an eternity of torture at the hands of his creator. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.

Perhaps though, there is a lesson for all of us in his example. Righteous violence, whether to deal with a terrorist leader or the neighborhood bully can be a seductive activity and so easily condoned, even cheered. But where does it end? In the case of bin Laden, "justice has been served" as President Obama said. We spent untold dollars and countless lives to hunt down bin Laden and I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans would feel the price was worthwhile to avenge the death of the victims of 9/11.

But what about invading a country to remove its leader? Or firing missiles into foreign cities to force those in charge to relinquish power? When does violence in an effort to fight a brutal dictator or an "evil" nation cross over the line of righteousness and become the very thing it claims to abhor? Is it possible that by spending almost 1 out of every 3 dollars of our national budget on the military that we have stepped over the line of righteousness?

In light of the dramatic raid and killing of Bin Laden, one might argue that we don't need to spend over $700 billion each year on the military when superior intelligence, patience and precision are all we need to strike a blow against our enemies.

We are currently debating the causes and solutions of our growing national debt. Our colossal military budget is a factor in this growing debt. Perhaps, as part of this debate, we should be questioning our desire to be the world's police force, the cost of such a desire, and the moral certainty that this path is the will of our God.

I Want My Country Back

I was fortunate enough to have the following published recently in my local, weekly newspaper.


I Want my Country back...

I want my country back from people who believe President Obama hates America.

I want my country back from those who use religion to foster hatred.

I want my country back from people who believe that repeating a lie often enough makes it true.

I want my country back from those who decry the tyranny of the majority, until they become it.

I want my country back from people who use profit as their only yardstick.

I want my country back from those who think Charlie Sheen and the Kardashian sisters are role models.

I want my country back from people who believe that the loudest opinion is correct.

I want my country back from those who forget that everyone in America descends from immigrant ancestors unless they are Native American.

I want my country back from people who believe that might makes right.

I want my country back from those who are very religious but not nearly spiritual enough.

I want my country back from people who believe that compromise is a sign of weakness.

I want my country back from those who deny the pleasures of marriage to the gay community while ignoring the 50% plus failure rate of marriage among heterosexuals.

I want my country back from those who believe that profits are more important than people.

I want my country back from people who believe that their religion is the only true religion, their politics the most patriotic, their color the superior race, their sexual orientation the only moral perspective and their nationality the only exceptional heritage because it is divinely blessed.

America is a great country! Despite the fact that your opinions may reflect some of mine as detailed above or are more in tune with one or all of those with which I disagree, we are able to voice those opinions, debate the merits and flaws of our various ideas and do so without the violence and unrest that is currently taking place among people throughout the world. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget that it is the very existence of this diverse and sometimes incompatible range of viewpoints, and the freedom to express them that makes America so great. Our ability to resolve the disagreements among ourselves, without rancor, is the most powerful example we can present to those protesting, fighting and dying for the rights and freedoms that we so often take for granted.

Taxes

Lately, with all the news about our growing national deficit, I have spent some time reading the various deficit reduction plans, critiques of said plans, and articles about taxes in general.

I have read that our corporations pay a far smaller percentage of aggregate collected income tax than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago, but I also read an opinion that these collected taxes are lower because many of these multi-national corporations moved their headquarters off shore to take advantage of the lower corporate taxes of other countries.

I have read that we shouldn't tax millionaires any more than we are currently, because they will simply up and move their companies and/or residences to states where the taxes are lower but then I read about a research study that indicated that very few millionaires, who have the opportunity to move to a neighboring state with lower "top-end" income taxes, actually did move.

I have read that one party's deficit reduction plan will place the next generation of our elderly in the precarious situation of chasing after their own individual health care plan while on a "budget" while the other party's plan will result in the bankruptcy of Medicare which will leave all the elderly without medical coverage. But then I read that one party's tax cut is another party's increase in spending and that either way the budget will never be balanced.

So what is the answer?

As is always the case, the answer lies in a country's priorities. What does it mean that Medicare or Social Security are going to bankrupt America? My understanding is that both these programs have historically collected more money than needed to pay their liabilities. Unfortunately, that excess money was used to balance past federal budgets rather than kept aside for a rainy day (and it appears to be raining pretty hard right now) so we have IOU's in place of actual funds. Yes, those IOU's are in the form of treasury bills, etc which means that one government agency owes another, but the fact is there is a debt and accompanying interest that exists as a result of this accounting ploy. 

And now, there is the fast approaching time when these programs will begin taking in less money than required to pay the bills so not only will we be paying interest on past debt, we will have to come up with new money to pay future liabilities. So, while using the word bankrupt may be an exaggeration of sorts, the fact is that either cuts to the benefits or new taxes will need to occur to bring both programs back to solvency.

Now, lets take the case of national defense. The United States spends as much money on "defense" as the next 20+ countries in the world, 5 times more than that spent by the 2nd highest. Should that mean that we, as citizens, should then expect to pay more in taxes to support this tremendous outlay of monies? If there were a poll taken today of Americans asking if they were willing to pay substantially more in taxes than the citizens of all other countries in the world to cover defense spending, what would the result be? Clearly, Americans seem unwilling to pay more taxes for better health care and other social services, but I wonder if we would draw the line on national defense. If so, then I guess we have established our national priority; security as a nation over security as individuals. If not, then perhaps we need to have a new discussion about where our tax money is being spent.

Which brings me back to corporations. Are they not willing to shoulder the higher tax rate to keep America safe?

One other question about corporate taxes. Why are corporations allowed to merely establish a corporate headquarters in another country to avoid US taxes? Perhaps I am naive in saying this, but wouldn't it be more fair if corporations paid taxes to the countries coffers where they actually earn their revenue and profit? If I were to research and find the lowest state tax rate in the country and then open a post office box in that state and use it as my "headquarters", could I avoid the state tax of the state where I work? Probably not, yet isn't that what we allow corporations to do?

Finally, I saw an article in a well-respected business magazine which detailed how businesses and individuals could pay no taxes to Uncle Sam. All the suggestions were legal tax deductions, of course. Certainly, I understand that we all need to feel that our tax money is being spent wisely, and so I encourage everyone to research the national budget and see where the money comes from and where it goes. But is it not part of our patriotic duty to pay our taxes? Or, to put it more bluntly, are you not willing to support our troops, pave our roads, build our bridges, educate our children, research the prevention of disease, assist the disadvantaged, etc? Or have we all become so selfish and self-centered that we now ask "not what we can do for our country" but what our country can do for us?

Final thought (for now) on the budget and the military

With (finally) the onset of nicer weather, I have been hearing birds in the morning during my route. Chirp, chirp.

In a previous blog, I detailed that federal spending is divided into two main categories, mandatory (required spending per existing laws) and discretionary spending (where we choose to spend our funds). So, when I recently read an article that stated that discretionary spending for the 2011 federal budget was overwhelmingly being directed to the department of defense (something like 75%), I thought it necessary to investigate.

Towards that end, I found a very informative interactive graphic in a New York Times article. Cut and paste link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

This graphic displays the 2011 federal budget by spending via blocks that are sized based on the amount allocated for each area. It is also color coded in that it indicates the percentage of increase or decrease for the 2011 budget over the 2010 budget. It is interactive in that you can place your cursor on each box to reveal the name of the category. And, at the top, there is a box that enables you to hide the mandatory spending categories to display only the areas of discretionary spending. It is very revealing!

First, if you look at it with all spending boxes "on", it is easy to see where the bulk of the federal budget is targeted; national defense, social security, medicare and an area called income security. Clicking on the "remove mandatory spending" button, presents the discretionary spending and confirms in stark contrast the high percentage of military spending that the article claims. The shear size of the box when compared to spending in all other areas would be comical if not for the fact that it reveals just how costly is our belief in might makes right. I encourage everyone to take a look at this graphic and decide for yourself if it reflects your priorities.

In conjunction with this discussion on the military, I recently began reading a book called "9/11/11: The Tenth Anniversary Attack" by Dr. Rocco Martino. It is a work of fiction but is executed by a writer who clearly knows his subject. In the book, Dr. Martino attempts to detail the strategies of our terrorist enemies, and our own government as we attempt to thwart their plans to inflict damage on our country. The plot takes the reader through the time of late 2010 up until the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and paints a possible picture of the destruction that may be heading our way.

Without revealing too many details about the book, there is one particular scene which spurred an unsettling thought on my part. The scene involves a conversation between two of the main characters in which they are discussing as fact how President Reagan toppled the Soviet empire by outspending them. I am not saying I disagree with the assertion that this was the sole cause of the fall of the Soviets as I think it is a bit simplistic, but I certainly agree that it was a factor. (It certainly led to the doubling of our national debt which so many conservatives today seem to overlook in their idolatry of Reagan's legacy).

What unsettled me was that perhaps our enemies are using the same philosophy against us, i.e trying to bankrupt us in our execution of the "war on terror". Again, the obvious fact that we have spent huge sums of money on the wars since 9/11 (not to mention lives) and that, again, this expenditure has as much to do with our growing national debt as anything, seems lost on the deficit hawks now in the spotlight. Perhaps our enemies' plan is to let us spend ourselves into bankruptcy by merely adding fuel to our "revengeful" fire via the occasional plot (foiled or successful, it doesn't matter). Now, as I review the budget boxes as demonstrated on the NY times graphic, it makes me even more concerned that perhaps my fear is not so outlandish.

At a time when federal, state and local budgets are under stress to decrease funding for the people of this country via education, health and human services, there seems no end to the money we will spend on the military. What better way to destroy a country than to let it collapse upon itself.

For readers interested in Dr. Martino's book, please refer to the following websites for information.

http://www.roccoelonardmartino.com (Dr. Martino's website)

http://www.9-11-11thenovel.com (the book site)

Or, for all you electronic book users, it is available on both Amazon (in digital and electronic form) and Barnes and Noble (in electronic form).

Another War

I was accompanied by snow on my route these past few days. Monday's flakes were especially big, fat and sticky. I tried to enjoy them knowing that it could very well be the last of winter's white blanketing of our lawns and cars. Also, last weekend featured what the press was calling a "supermoon". While it was certainly full and looked rather large when low on the horizon, I didn't think it was as impressive as others I have witnessed since my recent purposeful awareness of my environs. Perhaps all the hype took away from the pleasure but the supermoon was not as spectacular as billed. For me, the best show was last Saturday's moon rise which I saw as I traveled with my son to bring him home for spring break.

As if we weren't engaged in enough military expressions, President Obama decided to join (some might say form), a coalition of western allies to attack Libya. Our old friend, Muammar Gadhafi has been killing his own people as they rise in protest of his authoritarian rule. Like the wave of freedom-seeking protesters that has swept across the Middle East these past few months, those in Libya are expressing their anger at decades of poverty and pain for the people while the comforts of oil money stay in so few hands. It is a scenario, with or without the oil connection, that is playing out in Egypt, Yemen, and Tunisia among others, and has implications for any eastern or western nation where the young have awakened to their plight.

While I understand that, in this case, the Libyan leadership was using more modern weapons at their disposal to quell the unrest than did some previous dictatorships, I have to wonder why we didn't intervene, militarily, on the side of any of the other citizen protesters. Perhaps because we dislike Gadhafi more than Mubarak in Egypt? Perhaps because there is oil in Libya but none in Tunisia? If the same type of protesting began tomorrow in an African country, would we call on the United Nations to intervene? If it happened in Saudi Arabia, would we create a no fly zone and shoot down the Saudi's American made planes?

I am glad that I am not in President Obama's shoes. I can only imagine the pressure he was under to "act" in support of the Libyan protesters or face the usual political pundits who would claim his hesitancy reflected a "deer in the headlights" reaction typical of his presidency, at best, an outright hatred of freedom at worst.

For me, I can't quite grasp how it is so easy for us to justify killing others in the name of freedom. And, even more baffling, how the winner in these conflicts is always in the right, as if they are divinely blessed. For all the millions of people who have been slaughtered throughout history by superior military forces, it must be difficult to swallow the realization that they were killed by the grace of someones god.

Perhaps this has been suggested already, so I don't want to assume I didn't hear it somewhere in passing, but it occurs to me that this wave of protest is a reflection, not of our military excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, not a result of President Bush's drive to bring democracy to the world, not even because current President Obama has reached out to the Muslim world in a way that no previous president.

I think these protests, driven mostly by the young, are due to the power and pervasiveness of social media. Yes, it is Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg and Jack Dorsey whom we should thank. In the last 20 years, their creations have spread the concepts of freedom and self determination, and the rights for all human beings to enjoy those freedoms more quickly than in the previous millennia of human existence.

So, perhaps rather than spending $850 billion on defense and the military, the United States should spend, lets say $10 or $20 or even $50 billion dollars instead towards supporting the continuation of the flow of information. Then we will have more than enough money for proper funding to fix the infrastructure of our country, and to maintain the many other domestic programs we cannot fund due to the incredible cost of waging war.

Yes, while we will have to put up with U-tube videos of stupid pet tricks and celebrities gone wild, we will also provide the millions of under 20's who reside in these suppressed countries the means to experience our freedoms. It is only a taste that they need, their youthful energy and vigor will provide the rest. After all, where previous totalitarian regimes always sought to repress newspaper, TV and radio, they now target Facebook and Twitter instead.

The NFL Labor Dispute

I have noticed more rabbits during my delivery route lately. They appear in my headlights and scurry this way and that both in the street and on front lawns, then disappear behind the safety of a bush or house or into a field. 

Of course, in the face of the (in comparison) huge monstrosity of the vehicle I drive, they must be terrified at my existence in their world. This morning I thought of the unfortunate occurrences taking place in Japan as I watched one particularly scared rabbit zip in and out of my vision. We have such grand opinions of ourselves, building great monuments into the sky, harnessing nature to power our lifestyle, and debating the will of the Creator as if we have a clue what the grand scheme really entails. Yet in the face of photos and videos of the devastation of a natural disaster such as has happened in Japan, we are offered a glimpse of the power of nature. Unfortunately, the humbling that we feel is only short lived.

Which brings me to the ongoing labor dispute in the NFL. Generally, I lean toward the side of workers in most labor issues. To me, owners/business operators hold the vast majority of the cards so when a particular labor group can draw even, or perhaps inch ahead, I feel it is a win for all workers. In this case, though, we are talking about millionaires fighting with fellow millionaires, and it leaves me cold. Regardless of who wins this fight, the loser will still be neck deep in money.

In reality, all football fans in particular, and sports fans in general are the losers here because no matter how is shakes out, the fan will foot the bill for someone's increased revenue.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a big sports fan. I follow all the professional sports teams of Philadelphia, and up until recently was able to attend a few Eagles games each year. So it is not easy for me to say that I hope there is no football season this year. I hope the two sides cannot come to an agreement to share the billions of dollars at stake, and decide to play chicken with the sport. I hope that their resistance to compromise (by the way, when did compromise become an indicator of weakness?), causes a complete cancellation of the 2011-12 football season.

More importantly, I hope that fans like myself come to realize that sports is just a diversion from life, not life itself. That we can enjoy our Sundays (and Monday nights, and sometimes Thursday nights, and, yes even Thanksgiving) without the sport. I hope that we find more time to spend with our families, more time to walk in the neighborhood or the local park. More time to read, listen to music or go to a movie. I hope we find that it is nice to watch a football game, but not necessary. Then, perhaps, when the labor dispute is settled, the embattled millionaires will realize that they need us more than we need them and sports will revert back to its proper priority in life.

Trickle Down

A devastating earthquake followed by a tsunami has created chaos in Japan this past few days. Getting overly excited about budget battles might seem trivial when compared to the loss of life and the still unresolved issues related to the nuclear reactors that have been negatively affected by nature's wrath. Perhaps a day will come when material possessions and the pursuit for them are prioritized appropriately by man. Perhaps it will take more acts of nature to help us along the way as it seems that despite our obsession with the material, disasters seem to bring out the best in us via humanitarian aid for the unfortunate. In the meantime, it might be helpful if we kept in mind that we should be working in concert with nature and not in competition.

This past week, Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania, proposed his 2011-12 budget. Going into the process, it was known that the governor was faced with the daunting task of balancing a budget with a $4 billion deficit, a task he made even more difficult by promising no tax hikes to close the gap.

The good news is that he was true to his word; no tax increases. The bad news is that he was true to his word. No new taxes but massive funding reductions, centered mostly in education and human services. He also plans employment terminations which will result in hundreds of public employee layoffs.

It appears that Governor Corbett has taken a page from the now 30-year old economic theory called trickle down. Originally, it was envisioned that this theory would create a rising standard of living for the middle class by allowing big business and those with the resources to proceed unencumbered; less regulation meant more free enterprise meant more money and opportunity for everyone. Unfortunately, the past 30 years has instead resulted in higher incomes for a very small percentage of Americans and a stagnation of the standard of living for working, middle class families.

Now, with governor Corbett's plan, the theory has come full circle. But in this case, the Governor's plan features the trickle down of the pain and suffering of sacrifice for the middle class. While state taxes may stay the same, local taxes will rise to cover the shortfall in funding, and/or jobs will be lost in many communities. Less jobs will mean less money to spend which means less goods and services being purchased which means less orders which means less need for employees. You get the picture.

Somewhere down the line, we, as taxpayers, will learn that voting for someone who pledges no new taxes will not necessarily result in no new taxes for the middle class. We never asked the governor elect how he was going to handle the $4 billion deficit so he never detailed his plan until elected. Now we get the details and are surprised that the tax burden will trickle down to the local level. That old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (or over and over again) shame on me, comes to mind.

More on the Budget

As the sunrise is coming earlier now, I am starting to see glimpses of it as I finish my weekday route. The last few days I was witness to a slight dawning of the light over a scenic view of Lenape park as I drove down Oak Street in preparation of making a left towards the library. Unfortunately, I will only be privy to this until Saturday as Daylight Savings Time begins Sunday morning and I will be thrust back into the dark for my weekday route for another few months.

I have spent some time reviewing various breakdowns (with accompanying opinions) of the proposed 2011 federal budget. The numbers are staggering but in a nutshell, there is about $2.5 trillion dollars expected in revenue with $3.8 trillion estimated for expenses. Quite a discrepancy!!

From what I can gather, slightly more than half of the revenue comes from income taxes, individual and corporate. Just under half comes from social security and other payroll taxes and the slight remainder (about $200 billion, or approx, 8%) comes from a small group of other sources.

Output is divided into discretionary (about 37%) and mandatory spending (the remaining 63%). In raw numbers, mandatory spending is $2.4 trillion. This means that we could have a budget surplus of about $100 billion if we only spent the money we had to and nothing else.

Unfortunately, the categories on the discretionary side of the ledger include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, just to name a few. And, of course, the Department of Defense.

Clearly, the mandatory spending side of the issue needs to be addressed, and that includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which account for $1.5 trillion. Until we see our elected representatives begin discussing these programs, all this "serious" talk about cutting funding for items like Planned Parenthood or the Corporation of Public Broadcasting is purely political bombast.

Think of it this way. Examination of your personal monthly budget reveals that after you pay your $1000 mortgage and $200 in utility bills, you have $60 left to eat and clothe yourself and family.

Serious problems need serious discussions. Too bad we aren't getting any, and shame on us for not demanding them.

Its about revenue, stupid

Last weekend I was treated to a pretty pink and purple sunrise.

This past week, Monday I think, there was a moon rise very early in the AM. The moon was just a sliver and during the 15 minutes when it was low on the horizon, it was perched in the sky nearby a large point of light, probably a planet. The juxtaposition of the two was like something you would see on a SciFi movie about a far away world.

I have heard many a deficit hawk claim that our current budget deficit woes are about spending, spending, spending. Rep Ryan has emerged as one of the leading voices in this area and he has been quoted more than once as saying something to the effect that tax revenues are fine, it is the "out-of-control" spending that has created the fiscal mess we are in.

Perhaps.

I googled federal tax receipts and found that tax receipts for fiscal year 2009 (many Obama blamers forget that the federal budget runs from September through August so the 2009 budget was President Bush's last) were about the same as those for 2005. Clearly, the recession was in full bloom causing a backslide of tax receipts which was not matched by a similar reduction in spending. In retrospect, it is easy to see how devastating such a reduction would be and realize that very little could have been done to prevent it. (The 2009 deficit was $1.4 tillion by the way). 

What President Bush started - a federal plan to bolster the economy via the TARP program, various bailouts for the automakers and Wall Street - President Obama continued via more bailouts for troubled industries and the stimulus program. As a result, the 2010 federal budget, still saddled with 2005 level receipts, saw an increase in spending over 2009 to create another $1.5 trillion deficit for the year.

UGH.

Clearly, we need to work towards bringing receipts and spending more in line. But to ignore the fact that tax receipts were reduced $400 billion from 2008 to 2009 (almost 20% less) ignores half of the budget deficit issue. Also, and it is certainly debatable, there are many economists who would say that the bailouts and additional spending that occurred in 2009 and 2010 prevented an even more severe recession. Again, it is hard to know what would have happened, but it is certainly conceivable that the current state of recovery would not be as far along as it is without the increased spending.

I have heard it said that President Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union. A look at the federal budget numbers for his eight years in office reveal that there was a strain on our federal budget as well resulting in yearly federal budget deficits as well as a doubling of our national debt. If we assume it was money well spent then, why aren't we as willing to assume the current deficit spending is also worth while if it avoided a deeper recession?

Sometime soon, taxes will rise. History is clear; President Reagan's deficit spending spree resulted in higher taxes during his 2nd term and during that of the first President Bush. Rather than starting now, Congress and President Obama recently chose to extend the Bush era tax cuts, thereby increasing the deficit even more. Again, the idea is to get more money into the hands of the populace but the fact is, the debt will increase.

Lets reduce spending. But lets recognize that a deficit is the normal result of a recession. And lets also remember that how we reduce federal spending will reveal our priorities. We applaud the deficit spending which contributed to the decline of the Soviet nation. Will we be as eager to continue deficit spending if it helps fellow Americans stay in their homes, secure access to medical services, obtain medical coverage, afford higher education and place food on their tables?