Money, money, money

I have recently begun some new correspondences centered on discussing economics.  In today's heated political environment, a chasm exists between the two camps as to the best method of circumventing our current economic malaise.  Even the prospect of the Super Committee to draft a proposal that will be palatable to both sides while still actually accomplishing something seems remote.  In my correspondences, I have played the role of defender of government intervention to stimulate the economy.  I unquestionably believe it is the government's role to provide money/stimulus when the private sector is unable (as in the case of the Great Depression) or unwilling (as I believe is part of our problem today). 

There seems a strange juxtaposition of morality prevalent in today's discourse.  We have those who honor the sanctity of life by advocating the elimination of abortion in our society but who don't seem to extend that same honor to those whose only crime was to be born in a country other than America.  We have those who would stand at attention in an airport as a group of soldiers passed by in recognition of their bravery yet would hurl hateful epitaphs at the funeral of one who died for the very freedoms that they cherish merely because of who that person chooses to love.

And then there is money.  I am sure that most of us would seek justice against those who would steal lunch money from smaller schoolmates yet at the same time we frequently repeat sayings such as "Let the buyer beware" when faced with the sad story of someone who invested their savings unwisely or purchased an advertised product that was faulty.  

We seem all to willing to admire those who are materially successful regardless of how they accomplished such success.  In the ultimate example of greed over man, there are many who have no qualms with the thousands of Wall Street derivative brokers who made untold millions of dollars pedaling financial instruments that held no value.  Even when the buyers of these worthless funds turned out to be the pension funds of working Americans resulting in the net loss in the billions to these retirement accounts, there were those who fought every and all regulation changes designed to try to prevent such future occurrences.  Their belief in capitalism and the right for an individual to attain wealth seems to completely obliterate their examination of the methods one might use to become wealthy.

And then, of course, is the obvious teachings of Christ who equated the chances of a rich man to reach heaven with those of a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.  Do we just not believe that particular parable, or do we believe that God has altered the game so that those with the most money get the best seat in heaven?

Anyway, I would certainly prefer that the movers and shakers of this world, those with the best brains and the most ambition, the real job creators among us, would voluntarily come to the conclusion that a sustainable economic system builds from the bottom up and that no amount of trickle down will work if the tricklers are too consumed by attaining wealth, and those to be trickled upon believe that they might one day be a trickler so let there be no restraint.  In that  vein, I thought it relevant to reprint my story The Change for any new reader of my blog who has not encountered it as of yet.   



                                                                          The Change

 
Strangely enough, the change had begun from the actions of an athlete. Not one of those athletes who points to the sky whenever he performs admirably but clearly one whose spirituality matched his athletic prowess. He was twenty-eight years old, just in the midst of his prime, as he was reminded incessantly when he first proposed his idea. In the previous three years, he had led the league or been close to the top in every category that mattered, and it was expected that the negotiations for his next contract would set a new standard for compensation. When he first mentioned the plan to his agent, she immediately appealed to the his wife, mother, and teammates, even going as far as bringing in star athletes from other sports to talk some sense into him. But to no avail. He was adamant that it was time for someone to make a stand and who better but someone who could maximize the effect.

The process, as all significant social and economic changes are, was gradual and not readily noticed by the populace. In fact, at first the trend was a positive one. Starting after the second of two great world wars, there was impressive growth. And for the first 40 years or so, this growth penetrated virtually all levels of society. Within two generations, the ideas and ambitions of the best of the population helped drive the development of a thriving middle class whose labor made those ideas and ambitions come to fruition. This symbiotic relationship, while not completely inclusive of all people, for the first time bridged many of the gaps that had excluded women and minorities.

But the growth was unsustainable. In retrospect, it seemed obvious that a slowdown or a time of flat growth was inevitable after such a meteoric rise. But expectations had risen as well and so rather than taking a breath and revising expectations, the country's leadership continued to stoke the belief in unfettered progress. When natural resources seemed to be straining, new technologies were developed to enhance the processes. When investments could no longer rely on new ideas and hard work to produce the required gains, new financial vehicles were created which traded on expectations, opinions and trickery. When people working together for a common goal no longer resulted in enough profit, influences were popularized that inflamed class warfare and class envy even as jobs were moved to areas and countries where labor was cheaper and profit could be maintained.

Some said it was a purposeful slide, orchestrated by the haves to keep the have-nots in line and confused about their degrading state. But if the truth be told, it was everyone, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, who let it happen. Rather than looking in the mirror in acknowledgement of individual responsibility, they continued to buy when they should have saved, to waste when they should have conserved, and to believe the easy answers rather than demanding that someone tell them the hard truth. And so, a mere four generations after the biggest surge in opportunity and standard of living ever experienced in history, the trend began to reverse.

Where once school age children could by a ticket for a ball game on a sunny summer's day, now only the well-connected or lucky employees of a large corporation could afford to attend. Where once anyone could attend a college, even if just the local community college, now only those with status or money could attend an institute of higher learning. Where once, everyday people visited other parts of their country or even foreign lands, now only the rich even had vacations, let alone the money to spend on one.

"I don’t want the money, at least not just for me”, the star athlete began. “I expect you to spend the hundred million dollars you are offering me but I only want fifty of the hundred million. The remainder you must split amongst all the non-players in this organization, all the people who work at the stadium, all the faceless workers who set the stage for this sport”.

It took the organization a few months, but eventually they executed his request through direct bonuses and a trust fund to disperse the money over the course of the next four years as the contract stipulated. The owners and CEO did their best to keep the news a secret, but the secrecy did not last long. Surprisingly however, there was no need for the concern that drove their desire to keep the news from reaching the public. While there was certainly discord from many camps, the fans of the city quickly expressed their support. And the workers who had benefited from this unusual arrangement, displayed a new energy and pride in their jobs.

Later that year, two other athletes in a different city demanded a similar contract but went even further. One of them took the same tact with regards to splitting the money but the contract of athlete number two required the “excess” money to be applied to a lowering of the ticket prices. As a result, a few Sundays after the contracts were signed, a standing room only crowd included thousands of fans who had not seen a game in person in their lifetime.

From there, the trend spread to all of the other major sports. While competition on the field was still as intense as ever, the competition for innovative ways to share the wealth was just as feverish. Days featuring free food for all children in attendance, then games with free attendance for the children and their parents from entire elementary schools, then sporting events with no money changing hands at all. This is not to say that profit was removed from athletics. Business was still conducted, profit and loss still evaluated. But the idea that this was a game, played to entertain the everyday citizens who made the city work, became just as important.

Due to the overlap of friendships among many star athletes and those in the entertainment business, the change next penetrated that industry. The first star to embrace the notion reduced the face value of the tickets for his 20 city tour by 50% over the previous tour. When some scalping was reported by some fans at the third stop of the tour, the entertainer made a 30 second commercial asking those responsible to stop while also asking his fans to stop paying the extra money. For the most part, his plea worked and three other big name acts matched his 50% reduction of tickets.

Of course, at this point the movement was still a minor ripple. But as even the smallest pebble will create a wave that while tiny will still reach as far as the eye can see, news of these actions reached all levels of society. In the next year, a weekly series TV star took a 50% pay “diversion” which was passed along to the innumerable people who toil behind the scenes of every successful TV show. This same decision was quickly copied in short order by three movie stars, a radio talk show host, two television news anchors, and even an author who needed all her creativity to match the generosity of those who came before her.

But the tipping point occurred when the CEO of one of the most profitable and influential companies in the country called for a press conference one beautiful spring afternoon. With press from all over the world in attendance, he calmly walked to the podium and made the following announcement.

“Friends, family, members of the press, and those of you watching me live on the internet. As you know, in the past 2 years there have been some recent decisions by some high salaried individuals to share their compensation. This was accomplished in various ways, sometimes by strictly improving the salaries of the various support staffs, sometimes by passing along the difference to their fans and customers, sometimes a combination of both. Regardless of the method, the intent was the same; to reverse a trend that had led to an ever increasing income inequality in our country”.

“When I first became aware of these individuals and their actions, I was skeptical. I had become so used to gauging everything by profit and loss that these actions seemed ludicrous. But, as you all know from my history, I am nothing if not interested in new ideas, new trends, new ways to improve my company. So, about three months ago, I held a weekend long meeting with the top minds in business today. We started with the premise that this trend might be bad for our companies and business in general. We studied the available numbers for those companies which had been affected by the change and found very little difference in profit. Salaries, which are always a significant percentage of a company’s expenses, had only changed by distribution, not quantity. But the biggest surprise was that in some cases, profits had inched upwards. How could that be? These companies were paying well beyond market value for all but one position yet profits were not affected”.

The CEO stopped, took a short sip of water, then smiled.

“So we went beyond the numbers and talked to the people involved. Those that had given back some salary were proud of their achievements. A few of the individuals told me that they still had plenty of money but were experiencing much more satisfaction from their lives. It wasn’t more money they needed, just more happiness, a feeling that they had made a difference. And on the other side, those everyday employees who had been taken for granted, felt more appreciated. They knew the support nature of their roles but had grown frustrated that no matter how hard they worked, they couldn’t get comfortable. There was always a lagging bill, always something out of reach. But now, they had that extra buck to get to a movie or replace an old appliance or spend a Sunday at the beach”.

“And then we discovered something completely unexpected. The communities where these people lived were also experiencing an upswing in business. All that money that had gone exclusively to the top earners in the past was very rarely spent in the local area of the company. But a huge percentage of that diverted money was now staying in the communities. In short, it seemed to be a win-win situation and it made us reevaluate our original premise that perhaps those companies were not paying salaries beyond the market value of the work but were investing in their employees and the communities in which they worked and lived”.

At this point, about a dozen men and women approached the podium. For those familiar with business, they were witnessing an unprecedented gathering of the movers and shakers of the industry. They exuded confidence and comfort. They seemed relaxed while still possessing an understanding that they were about to expand the change into a country wide movement.

"Behind me you see many faces that you recognize. They are the faces of people who have accomplished a great deal in their lives. By any current standard of success, whether you use wealth, influence, power or possessions, they would be considered some of the most successful people in the country, if not the world. Together however, we have concluded that we may have missed the boat in some respects. We placed too much emphasis on personal wealth and the profitability of our companies, and not enough on the welfare of our employees and the communities in which we operated. We bought into the rationalization that we were providing jobs and forgot that if the jobs did not provide our employees with an acceptable standard of living, then we were not providing enough. In short, our bottom line focus sacrificed people for profit".

"As you know, our influences extend beyond the direct holdings of our organizations; we sit on the boards of dozens of other corporations across a wide spectrum of industries. After hours of meetings with these boards, we are here to publicize a few simple changes to the operations of those businesses. A list of these companies and these alterations is being passed around now so you can see how widespread the change will be and so you can publish the names in hopes that those businesses not on the list will seek to follow our example. As you can see, the change will include a reduction of our personal compensation so everyone will know that we are so confident in this strategy that we are starting with our own salaries".

The CEO stepped to the side of the group and raised his arm in their direction.

"We have accomplished a great deal during our business careers. But too much of it has centered on ourselves at the expense of our fellow man. Today, we chart a new course where our accomplishments are shared more equitably with the people doing the work. A course which values the welfare of all our employees on a more equal footing with that of the corporation, and values the people of the community in which they live as an extension of those employees."

With that, the CEO and the group of individuals with him departed the room. And while there was no instant revolution, the pendulum had been stopped. Over the next twenty years, the income gap between the top and bottom salaries began to diminish. The definition of rich no longer just included material possessions. While wealth still existed, excess wealth was definable, and avoided. Not because of a law but because it did not lead to the advance of the community. Business schools began teaching the concept of equitable compensation not just because it was fashionable but because it created a more motivated employee who produced a better product or service. Those in the entertainment industries accepted less compensation, not because they did not value their work but because they valued it as they valued other public servants; teachers, firefighters, police officers, and social workers. And so it didn't come as a big surprise when just three generations later, the definition of success had evolved from making a million to making a difference.

Parents/Parenting

I first heard Cat Stevens' song Father and Son, in the late 70's.  I am pretty sure I owned the 8-track tape, although I can't say on which album the song was contained.  I do remember that my reaction to the lyrics and sentiment was immediate and extreme.  And, of course, I identified with the son.

Recently I heard the lyrics again.  My reaction was no less immediate or extreme.  But I was forced to realize that my identification had changed.  I was the father now. 

How did that happen? Where did the time go?  All questions for some future blog.  For now, Father and Son.


Father


It's not time to make a change,

Just relax, take it easy.

You're still young, that's your fault,

There's so much you have to know.

Find a girl, settle down,

If you want you can marry.

Look at me, I am old, but I'm happy.

I was once like you are now, and I know that it's not easy,

To be calm when you've found something going on.

But take your time, think a lot,

Why, think of everything you've got.

For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.

--

As a son, I was never a fan of the lines, "It's not time to make a change, Just relax, take it easy."  To me, youth is exactly the time for change, exactly the time for restlessness.  I was certainly restless, searching for the changes that would help me understand myself, my world and my part in it.  Now, so many years later, I am still an advocate for change.  Not just for the young but for all ages.  Stagnation remains my least favorite state, the status quo my always questioned foe.

"You're still young, that's your fault, There's so much you have to know."  These lines could certainly not be understood then, by me, as they cannot be understood now by our sons (and daughters).  Only through the eyes of time do we realize all that we did not know when we were young.  I often tell young people that they have the luxury of selfishness at this point in their lives but it is a luxury that slowly fades as we move from children to child caregivers.  And like all luxuries, it is frequently taken for granted.

I can clearly remember the day, alone in my basement apartment that I prayed for a young lady to enter my life.  Of course, in retrospect my prayers may not have been driven by a spiritual need, but fortunately for me they were answered anyway.   So, I heartily concur with the lines

"Find a girl, settle down, If you want you can marry."

I especially like the option of marriage as opposed to the command to get married.  It is the finding of the partner that is so critical.  As for the settle down part, I would encourage a nice lengthy unsettling time filled with curiosity about each other, maybe some travel, and an openness to the new.  Discovery on ones own is wonderful, but with a partner, well that is priceless.  Now, of course, I hope my children think that I feel that

"...I am old, but I'm happy."

The easiest thing for parents to say, and probably the least effective is

"I was once like you are now, and I know that it's not easy,"

But we will say it anyway; just try to limit it to once a week.

As for

"To be calm when you've found something going on."

Forget it.  Harness those emotions, perhaps, but fore go calm.  Be loud, be obnoxious, be boisterous when you've found something going on.  Like those young people protesting on Wall Street this past week, like myself when we clambered on buses and went to Washington DC for anti-nuclear power rallies, voice your opinion.  There is plenty of time to be calm when you are focused on your family and getting a good job and paying the mortgage.  (I think they are the calm activities?!).  Even if you are uncalm for the wrong reasons, when you don't fully understand why Wall Street's denizens need to be protested or why nuclear energy has problems, eschew calmness even in the face of corporate talking heads and your best friends' father who works at a nuclear facility.

"But take your time, think a lot"

Take your time evokes the same image as be calm, and I won't have it.  I like "think a lot" but wonder if that is my bias as a result of aging (perhaps maturing is a better word here).  Think a lot as opposed to just following the herd, but not if it begets a reluctance or inability for action.  I think that our current president thinks a lot, perhaps as much as any we have had in the recent past.  But maybe the thinking is getting in the way of action on his part to make his thoughts into policy. 

"Why, think of everything you've got" is another line that I believe virtually impossible for the young to comprehend.   They lack the experience to compare and contrast.  I didn't respond to it then and I would avoid that line as a parent now.

"For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not."

That must be the most depressing line of the song.  It is surely the leading cause of the young's avoidance of growing up.  Let's hope that while the dreams may change, they are still alive.  I see far too many people in their 40's and 50's who have lost their dreams and/or not been able to formulate new ones.  It is no way to live; one might even say not living at all.  I have been fortunate in that I rediscovered my dream of writing and, unlike dreams that require physical prowess or energy, writing only requires a bit of time and thought.  You will still be here tomorrow, and bring your dreams along is my advice.

---

Son

How can I try to explain, when I do he turns away again.


It's always been the same, same old story.

From the moment I could talk I was ordered to listen.

Now there's a way and I know that I have to go away.

I know I have to go.


All the times that I cried, keeping all the things I knew inside,

It's hard, but it's harder to ignore it.

If they were right, I'd agree, but it's them They know not me.

Now there's a way and I know that I have to go away.

I know I have to go.

---
 
As a son, and like so many other sons, I found it difficult to "try to explain".   Not because my parents wouldn't listen, they were extremely open to my thoughts.  It was more because I was convinced that their time was not my time, as I am sure my children think today.  At the least, we need to be open to their explanations, even if they don't make sense or are immature.  After all, they are children.  What we must not do is "turn away again" and allow them to think our response is and will always be "..the same, same old story."  Our worst response, one which will drive them away both physically and emotionally is similar to the "children are best seen and not heard" philosophy that some of our parents were raised by, or, as Cat Stevens says "From the moment I could talk I was ordered to listen."
 
"..there's a way and I know that I have to go away.  I know I have to go."
 
This is one of those lines that reminds me how immature my understanding of life was in the heady times of my youth.  For a short period of time, "I have to go away" meant literally, leaving the earth.  I was far too important to just go away by moving out.  I had to go away permanently.  I am not talking about an actual death wish, but I certainly engaged in some activities that were less than healthy.  It was mostly subconscious of course, but so clear today.  Luckily, the "go away" part became a lust for travel and then finally just moving out.  In the song, Cat Stevens does not seem to sing that line with any malice, but I am sure that "going away" for some sons meant hurting ones parents in the process.  When Kevin Costner in "Field of Dreams" recounts leaving home he remembers it as "I packed my things, said something awful and left".  Consciously or subconsciously, all our sons and daughters dream of going away, which includes leaving the stifling influence of their parents behind.  Knowing we smother them, even if with love, might make their going easier.  It will certainly make the coming back more comfortable when they pass from sons to fathers and daughters to mothers.
 
Finally,
 
"All the times that I cried, keeping all the things I knew inside,
It's hard, but it's harder to ignore it.
If they were right, I'd agree, but it's them They know not me.
Now there's a way and I know that I have to go away."

I don't remember crying all that much as a young adult.  Strange, but I seem to be more prone to tears as I age.  Is it that I ignored all the things I knew inside as I navigated the seas of expectations involved in being a spouse, an employee, a father?  Is it that I now understand who I am and hence the line "it's them They know not me" has finally come to be an actual fact? 

Perhaps it is the arrogance of experience that tells us that the young can't possibly know who they are because we are still trying to figure out ourselves to this day.  Or perhaps the young do know who they are but the answer is even more disturbing for us because they know who they are not - us.

For me, Father and Son evokes all the emotions of growing up, and growing from knowing everything, to thinking you know something, to knowing how much you never knew, to just being happy that 

as Cheryl Crowe aptly stated

it is not knowing what you want its wanting what you've got.
  



   






 

Repeal of Don't Ask/Dont' Tell

The weather turned back to high humidity and frequent showers these last few days.  Back to shorts while delivering my route.  Today was the last of the three week sample program which required me to deliver an additional 75 papers each morning to selected homes.  As a result I was rising at 2:27 AM rather than 2:57 AM.  It was certainly extra work but the additional income has come in handy. Unfortunately, a memo received this week from the ownership will result in less pay to deliver papers going forward.  As is true for so many Americans, it will result in an evaluation of the job in terms of pay to work, but will probably lead to the conclusion that a reduced income is better than none.  And so the race to the bottom (for middle class working Americans) continues.

A more important event of this past week was the official change to the military's policy of don't ask - don't tell (DADT) in reference to gender preference.  Congratulations to the president for leading this change, and for military leadership for realizing that it was time to join the rest of society in its regard to employing people with same sex gender preferences.  To be fair, I actually give our military leaders some credit in seeing this change through as there was/is enough resistance from various circles that would have given them an out to making the change. 

I may be wrong on this account, but I imagine that many of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates would not have endorsed this change.  Certainly the tea party/Christian right candidates such as Michelle Bachmann, Ron Santorum and Rick Perry would not be in favor of this change.  I am not sure about Mitt Romney; probably he would be against it during the current presidential nomination campaign and for it if he became the nominee.   I would like to think that the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul, would come out (did I say that) for the change.  This is one of the areas where his candidacy makes for curious theater when those in the tea party who endorse him begin to understand the full ramifications of what it means to be libertarian, what it means to say that one is for individual liberty.  As I have said before, the tea party seems much to focused on their rights to say and do anything they please, while providing a litany of actions and beliefs that others must not do or believe if seriously searching for a tea party endorsement. 

As an aside to this thought, I recently read that a local Catholic college, retracted its invitation for a speaking engagement after pressure was brought to bear by a strong (but I hope small faction) that was unhappy with the speaker's views on abortion.  I guess they are so insecure of their faith, and especially of those who attend their college, that they do not think it wise for someone with a different perspective to speak.   Too bad for everyone.

But to return to DADT.  It is also important to acknowledge the thousands of American soldiers who bravely defended the constitution while serving their country (and dying, in some cases) despite the fact that they were not being accorded the same protections under the constitution as those who promoted the discrimination against them.  I can't imagine a more frightful and revealing scene than those misguided church goers who protested last year with ugly hate signs at the funeral of an openly gay soldier.  A group clearly more interested in their own freedoms, a group allowed to exercise their freedoms in a way that completely disrespected the rights of someone who willingly gave his life to defend those freedoms.  Those brave men and women who served under the yoke of pretending to be something they were not are the best example of what America and the American experiment of individual freedom is about.

Finally, and even more importantly, we need to recognize the incredible strength and fortitude of those individuals who chose to serve and proclaim their sexual preference.  Those men and women who understood the real meaning of the Constitution, and whose love for their country and respect for that great document drove them to fight against the unfairness of DADT.  Just imagine, please, the difficulty one must face when his/her patriotism, nay, their very right to live free in America, is questioned based on an activity that, if denied anyone practicing the heterosexual version, would generate immediate outcries among all factions of society.  (Should I mention here the fact that anal sex is practiced by upwards of 20% of heterosexual couples?)  No, perhaps it best I don't mention that. 

We rightfully admire the civil rights activists who helped push America into a more racially neutral nation.  We recently unveiled a monument in Washington honoring the recognized leader of that movement.  In this case, there will probably not be a monument to any one particular person who embodied the drive to repeal DADT.  Perhaps it is better that way, but only if we come to realize that the individuals behind this change are our neighbors, nephews, and nieces.  People we know, and people we know of but haven't allowed ourselves to know. 

Congratulations to all those on the front lines of this change, and to the countless men and women who have made this change happen precisely because of their anonymity.  

           

Deficit Games

The weather turned from summer to fall this past week.  I delivered my papers in shorts and sandals, and went to work similarly dressed.  When I left work it was winter; well not really winter but at least 15 degrees cooler.  Needless to say, my shorts and sandals were insufficient wear for the weather.  Since then, I have had to wear long pants on my route as the temps have been in the low 50's and upper 40's.  Despite the change, however, I am not ready to relinquish my sandals.

I caught the end of the movie Wargames today.  If you don't remember the flick, it featured Matthew Broderick as a high school computer wiz kid who hacks into a military website and begins playing Global Thermonuclear War with the computer, nicknamed WOPR by its handlers.  In the end, the computer takes over the decision making of the military, still thinking it is playing a game, and starts the end result of a thermonuclear war; launching the missiles.  Eventually, the wiz kid trumps the knowledge of the computer experts and "teaches" the WOPR that there is no winner in the game of thermonuclear war.  Or, more precisely, the only logical way to play the game is to not play at all.

Currently, we are seeing a similar game being played in Washington between the GOP and the President (Dems).  Unlike the two players in the cold war, today's Deficit Games will not bring about the end of the world.  But like the generation growing up during the years of nuclear shelters in the back yards, nuclear drills featuring school children hiding under their desks, and nuclear anxiety penetrating all levels of society, these Deficit Games are causing debt/deficit anxiety in America today.  While it is common knowledge that America's largest businesses are sitting on $1-2 trillion, they are not hiring.  While it is true that 9 out of 10 people have a job, many like myself with two or more jobs, we are not spending as we should.  We are stuck in a cycle of low consumer spending which means no reason for company hiring which means no new jobs which continues the low consumer spending.  And, when I read columns written by our best economic minds, it is uncertainty that is given as the prime reason for the continuation of this cycle.  We are afraid that the bad times will continue which, in a typical example of a self fulfilling prophesy, continues the bad times.

Which brings us back to the Deficit Games being played in Washington.  While the GOP and the Dems play the game, America suffers.  The president proposes a tax hike to improve revenue and the GOP calls it Class Warfare.  The GOP suggest entitlement reform and the Dems cry about granny dying in the street.   And Americans continue to suffer. 

The ironic thing about it, the really crazy factor in these Games is that what each side is trying to win is the 2012 election.  The very thing that we, as Americans can have the most effect upon via our most precious right to vote, is the goal of both sides.  But, instead of not playing the game as the Americans and Russians did during the Cold War, these two combatants haven't learned that there is no winner in these Deficit Games just as there would not have been a winner had we engaged in a Thermonuclear War.  By playing this game, the Dems and GOP are cementing the anxiety that permeates our country because each idea to move forward is lambasted by the other side, not with facts, but with sound bites that very rarely reflect the truth.

We must insist that future debt/deficit and jobs discussions include real potential solutions to these very real problems.  Perhaps we need our own "wiz" kid to emerge who can teach us the folly of playing these Games.  In the meantime, we can not afford another 14 months of this mutually assured financial destruction before the election.  But if that is what we get, we need to make sure that neither side "wins" while the rest of us lose.  

Recent Presidential Debate

I watched most of the Republican Presidential debate this past week, the one sponsored by the Tea Party.   I can't say it wasn't difficult at times to stay tuned,  but I feel it is important to hear the views of this disparate group of candidates.  Based on what appears to be a win for the Republican candidate for the House seat vacated by Rep Weiner in an area that has had a Democratic rep for quite some time, it is certainly possible that one of the candidates at that debate will become the next president. 

My impressions?

Well, first, I actually felt sorry for Gov Perry.  He had signed an executive order which required all teenage girls in Texas to receive the HPV vaccination.  Of course, there was an opt out for parents who did not want their children to receive the shot, but he was attacked nevertheless by Ms Bachmann and Mr Santorum.  At one point, Bachmann accused Perry of authorizing the vaccination as a result of the campaign donations he has received from the drug maker, Merck.  I felt sorry for the gov because it appeared that he was quite surprised to be taken to the mat for attempting to prevent cervical cancer in young girls.

He also appeared quite insulted at the suggestion that he signed the executive order as a reward for the donations. 

Funny that a member of the republican party would accuse Perry of allowing campaign donations to affect his/her governance, but when the Supreme Court came down with their decision last year which opened the door for even more money in our political system, it was the conservative/republican justices who voted for it and it was the conservative/republican pundits and elected officials who defended the decision.  

Anyway, the look on Perry's face seemed to say "I was doing what I thought was best for the children and families of my state and I am being attacked?!".  I wonder if Perry will remember how he felt before he accuses President Obama (or any Democrat) of ramming the government down the people's throats when they propose or enact legislation that they believe to be in the best interests of their constituents. 

Another interesting moment came when the moderator asked Rep Paul who should pay for the medical care of a 30 year old male, without coverage, who has a medical emergency which costs a large amount of money.  It is a shame that all the candidates weren't asked this question, especially Bachmann who must have used Obamacare in a pejorative tone at least a dozen times.  

In the case of Paul, he suggested that the victim's family, friends, community and church help pay the bill.  When pushed to respond to the possibility that there were no support systems in place for the individual, should he be left to die, Paul hesitated, then mumbled that no one is denied care.  Which, of course, does not answer the question.  

However, it was clear that someone in the audience thought the answer should a resounding YES as was heard in the background when the question of letting the man die was asked of Paul.  We know that rep Paul will never have to face the prospect of deciding to allow a loved one to die or go bankrupt to pay for their medical care; let's hope the individual in the crowd who was so eager to condemn the man will never have to face this tragic situation.

Oh, by the way, in the meantime census figures just released for 2010 show that almost 50 million Americans are without health coverage.  That is one in seven people in a country that has no qualms about giving sports stars $100 million contracts, granting health care for life for its elected officials (yes, even the republican ones), and spends in the neighborhood of $300 million a day on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To give Rep Paul kudos, he did mention his belief that the wars should end.  But his clear libertarian views seem too austere for the voting center.  Most people, I believe, accept the government's role in assisting those in dire need and in protecting those who are not able to protect themselves.  Also, if his libertarian beliefs run completely through his campaign as I have read, he will not be opposed to gay marriage which may make him a non-starter for the tea party group dogma that wants government out of our lives, except for those that lead lives different from them. 

It was amusing to see Newt Gingrich's response to Jon Huntsman's statement that the current leaders in the republican presidential race are too far right of center to win a national election.  Gingrich seemed to defend the far right candidates by dismissing Huntsman's concerns.  I guess, at this point, that will be his role. 
   
I almost fell off my chair when Santorum claimed that he had won two Senatorial elections in a traditionally Democratic state, Pennsylvania which meant that he could win a general election.  Not because that isn't true, he did win, but because when he lost, he lost by one of the largest margins ever by an incumbent Senator. 

We didn't hear from Herman Cain much although he did get in his 999 plan.  I believe it means 9% taxes for individuals, 9% taxes for corporations and a 9% sales tax, or VAT.  The mention of a VAT surprised me as I thought that this was anathema to republican candidates.  I give him credit for thinking outside the box.  

Unfortunately, my taxes would increase under a 9% flat rate if all deductions were eliminated.  I imagine most middle class income earners would see the same result if they own a home and have children.  It is a shame that most people don't realize that a flat tax would benefit the rich far more than regular working class folk.  Of course, there could be a flat tax plan that may include some type of deductions for lower wage earners or a higher "flat" tax for higher earners, so while I traditionally believe in the merits of a progressive tax system, I am certainly in favor of tax reform which removes the plethora of deductions, especially if there is a means test or base line where the deductions are completely eliminated.  Despite what all the republican candidates said, there is a spending and a revenue  problem; it is the combination of over spending while reducing income that has created our current yearly deficit and overall national debt. 

Finally, there is the "scam" that is social security.  Let's be clear.  It is certainly possible that if someone took the money that was removed from their checks and invested it on their own, they would have more to show for it today.  The problem is, IF they invested it.  What if they didn't.  What if even "only" 25% didn't?  Would they then be faced with the same response that emanated from the audience about the male without health coverage?  Let them die?

The fact is, social security was designed to counter a time in America when literally tens of thousands of Americans had no money, had no friends or family with the resources to help support them, and ultimately, had no life.  It was designed when people lived into their 60's and 70's, not 80's and 90's.  

Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But has it prevented untold millions of Americans from facing a time in their life, a time when they were the most vulnerable due to age or infirmity, from losing all they worked for, and even their very lives.  The real scam is that all the money invested in the social security system during the years that intake exceeded output was "borrowed" rather than placed in trust.  If social security is a Ponzi scheme, Mr Perry then the people running the Ponzi were/are our elected officials.  60+ years of them.  So, rather than scuttling a program that should be sitting on a few trillion dollars of benefit money awaiting the rainy day that has now started with the aging of our population, how about some rationale thought as to how to make sure it survives the upcoming baby boom years. 

Or, how about another idea.  Since politicians from both parties participated in the looting of the trust fund, how about if we earmark all the money being donated to all the congressional and presidential races to help pay down the debt owed to the social security fund by the politicians who diverted the money in the first place. 

 

Reflections on 9/11

So much rain lately.  Twice this week I had to ad lib my delivery route as floods and road blockades diverted my path.  It even rained a bit this morning on my way in to the warehouse.   There was a break in the clouds however, and at one point in my morning travels I was a spectator to a very clear, star filled sky.  I am not sure if the number of stars seemed greater because I haven't been able to see any stars lately, but it certainly seemed like there were more visible than normal.  Especially Orion's belt which appeared extremely bright.

I have read a number of columns about the upcoming 10 year anniversary of 9/11.  Most have been respectful to those who lost their lives, and non-political in abstaining from attempting to make points about/against either party. 

I may not be quite as restrained.

To start, it is clear, 10 years later, that the events of 9/11 were a significant factor in how this country has changed since then.  

In early September, 2001, we were still riding the high of being the only superpower still standing. 

Unemployment was around 5%. 

The national debt was right around $6 trillion.   

Of course, it is impossible to know how the leaders of America would have governed had they been from the Democratic party.
Perhaps the events of this horrible blow would have transcended all politics and nothing would be different today.  

But what we do know is that we had a Republican president from Jan 2001- through Dec 2008.

We had a Republican controlled House of Representatives from January 1999 (actually their run started Jan 1997) through January 2007.  

We had an interesting dynamic in the Senate.  From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. 

Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. 

On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. 

Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

At this point, Republicans took control of the Senate in Jan 2003 and held it until Jan 2007 when again, there was an even split of Democratic and Republican senators (49 each) with one independent democrat (Lieberman) and one independent (Sanders) so the Democrats had a slim majority. 

In essence then, we had a republican president with a republican controlled House and Senate for five plus years of the ten years following 9/11, including most of the critical first five years when all the major decisions were made concerning our national reaction to this horrible day.

And what was our national reaction?

At first, unity.  Perhaps a unity based on revenge, but a unity nonetheless.  When we were told that the terrorists were trained in Afghanistan we gave full approval to invade that country in October 2001.  After 18 months, we were told that Iraq was also involved in the training and planning for the attack.  While there was some hesitancy, again, another military incursion was begun. 

In the meantime, at home, the business friendly Bush Administration continued some of the regulation relaxations that had begun under Clinton and added some of their own.  The housing bubble, driven partly by a belief that everyone should own a home (even if they couldn't afford one), partly by the greed of the mortgage companies and banks who turned a blind eye to those who shouldn't be granted a mortgage, and partly by the illusion that America was the greatest country on Earth, nay in history, and that everything we touch will turn to gold. 

As we spent more money on our attempts to find justice through the military, the supply side economic theory begun under President Reagan gained favor again.  Tax cuts for all were initiated in both 2001 and 2003, but it was the 2003 cuts that had the most effect.  Combined with the costs of the wars, these cuts did not spur growth as the supply-siders theorized but instead began a series of federal budget deficits that averaged over $500 million per year. 

And then the housing bubble burst.  Mortgage companies were left with clients who couldn't cover their payments, the actual mortgages had been bundled into derivatives that had infected banks and insurance companies, working class Americans began losing their jobs and the cycle was complete.  More houses foreclosed, no construction jobs to find, more people unemployed, no orders for manufacturing, etc, etc.  Coincidentally, the top 1% of wage earners saw their share of overall income increase.

Which brings us back to the solemn remembrance of those who lost their lives on 9/11.  But what else did we lose that day?   Did we forget that it is in the face of tragedy that we can demonstrate our best qualities?  Did we also forget that hatred only begets hatred, and that ten years of war will never bring peace to those who lost loved ones, never bring solace to our country?

It is time to move forward and create a new reaction to the attacks on America that occurred ten years ago.

It is time for us to end our conflicts overseas. 

It is time for us to remember the sacrifices made by those who built our country, sacrifices that included thinking beyond our own material gains.

It is time for us to replace the maxim that whoever has the most toys wins with whoever displays the most humanity wins.

It is time for us to reject trickle down economic theories and embrace one which puts the american worker's interests before those of the multi-national corporations.

It is time for us to cease the false glorification of the individual above community and recall the wagon trains of yesteryear where everyone moved forward together, succeeding or failing as a group.

It is time for us to memorialize those who died on 9/11/01 with more than just words, more than just hatred for the perpetrators of that horrible carnage, more than just the money above all attitude that permeates our culture.

It is time for us, each one of us, to display American exceptionalism, not as measured by economic gain or the bottom line but as measured by the teachings of the person whose name forms the basis of our belief that we are a Christian nation.

Happy Labor Day

I drove my son back to college this past Tuesday.  Another 13 hour round trip.  On the way home, I was struck by the beauty of middle Pennsylvania.  To my left and right were fields and farms as far as the eye could see.  Over my left shoulder, the sun was setting in a picturesque display of oranges and pinks.  And in front of me rose the blue ridge mountains.  As the commercial says; Priceless.  Let's hope our desire to tap the Marcellus Shale does not ruin this landscape for future generations.

Even though I delivered papers this morning, and extra papers at that as today was one of those "bonus" days where the weekend only subscribers get a paper as well, I still consider today as a day off.  But national holidays like Labor Day are not days off for many people.  My wife is working (her part time job) at our local pharmacy, a chain outlet.  Although only a 5 hour shift, she is still working just as our so many other people who work for chain pharmacies, as well as all the "traditional" retail outlets.  My daughter is just finishing her summer work at out local, community pool so she is working a 4 1/2 hour shift, despite the on and off again rain.  Also, I shopped at our local Giant which meant that all those folks were working today just as all those who work for supermarkets.  I passed our local WAWA and it was open; more people working on Labor Day.  Next to the grocery store, the Chinese food store, the Rita's water ice store, the local pizzeria, and the Subway were open.  Still more people working.  Yes, service industries are alive and well in America today. 

And yes, we are grateful as a family for not only the two jobs that I work but the two jobs that my wife works as well as the summer job my daughter secured this year.  And certainly, we are extremely happy that I am getting paid by my full time employer to not work on Labor Day as is my wife by her (newly acquired) full time employer.   We are in better shape that most households where little or no money is coming in and while we would have preferred to honor Labor Day by not working at all, we are not faced with home foreclosure, unattended health issues or bankruptcy.

Still, I can't help wondering how so many middle class families came to this situation where Labor Day includes actual labor. My parents certainly did not live a luxurious life nor did they want for life's basic necessities yet my recollection is that Labor Day featured a family gathering with assorted relatives and friends.  No one missed the backyard festivities for work. 

For those of you who are reading this and who in fact, did have today off and did enjoy time with family and friends, are you aware of the fact that you are becoming the exception rather than the norm?  Did you have to invite 20 people to get 10 to come to your party because so many worked today? 

Perhaps the problem is that in our 24/7 lifestyles, we expect "service" 24/7.  We expect the grocery store and the gas station and the local pizzeria to be open just in case we forgot something for our party or need gas for the work week or just didn't feel like cooking.  I happen to work for a service company that is closed today.   Both yesterday and Saturday, I was asked numerous times if we were open on Labor Day, and most of the time my No was greeted with a sigh or visible disappointment.  Only once did a customer say, good for you, enjoy the day off.  Have we reached a point where we take our "service" people for granted to such an extent that they have become less than people?  That we expect them to be there for us, even when we expect to have off on Labor Day.

One of the topics I have broached with my son, as well as in past blogs, is the concept of work as a source of personal satisfaction.   Do we even teach that to our children anymore? Do our schools/colleges?   If we are going to spend 40 hours a week times 50 weeks a year times 40 years (80000 hours) of our lives shouldn't we be doing something we enjoy most of the time?  Something that we can even feel proud about doing when our shifts are over?

"Everbody's working for the weekend" is a line from a well known rock song.  Perhaps if we were working for more than just the money we earn, we might be able to have our service needs supplied and still allow everyone to have celebrate Labor Day by not working.      

A Jumpstart to 9/11 discussions

A clear and pleasant day after the hurricane weekend. If nature was a person one might say she was a bit bipolar these last few days.

As I have mentioned in past blogs, I read Smithsonian Magazine. In the August edition were two especially interesting articles. The first was written by Joseph Lelyveld and is about the upcoming 10 year anniversary of 9/11. Here is a link to the article.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-911-Wrought.html  

The second was about the remarkable job that the country of Finland has done in turning its Soviet era public school system into one of the more successful systems in the world as ranked by the internationally recognized PISA tests.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html 

Mr. Lelyveld's article on 9/11 may not be an easy read for many people. It will most likely make you angry, not just at the perpetrators of that horrendous day of carnage, but at our leaders reactions since then, and at ourselves for ceding responsibility to understand what and why 9/11 occurred and how we as a nation should respond.

Similarly, the article on Finland's rising public school system may also cause consternation as the public school system in the United States falls far short in comparison.

I find a connection to the two in the way we have prioritized our resources to address the two issues of national security/defense and education and how the recent debt debate has touched on this prioritization.

For my home state of Pennsylvania, the 2011 budget deficit was bridged through many funding cutbacks.  Most notable in these reductions was the almost $1 billion that was removed from the education budget.  

As education makes up a large percentage of a state's budget, it is not surprising that it could be a source for savings.  But when the new governor is handcuffed by his campaign pledge to balance the budget without raising taxes despite the potential windfall that exists under the state in the Marcellus Shale formation then the question of priorities is raised.  

This is even more apparent with the recent onslaught of publicity painting state employees, especially teachers, as the culprit in the budget shortfalls.  Take away their bargaining rights, prevent them from calling a strike, reduce their pensions, etc, etc.  But lets give a pass to the top 1% wage earners for fear that they will take their money and go home and to the big businesses who will reap millions of dollars of profit from our state lands.  

We are convinced that money is the only reason the super rich and big corporations will invest in/create jobs, yet we expect our teachers whose salaries have finally reached the level of other educated professionals to do it for the "satisfaction".  Because teaching is a noble profession.  Does that mean that running a high tech corporation or oil and gas conglomerate is not noble?  That they won't do it for the satisfaction of knowing that they are advancing the cause of America by being successful and hiring others to help them be successful? 
 
It seems it is always about money, the super rich create jobs, the huge corporations will take their business elsewhere if we tax them, the CEO's need to make 8 figures so we get the best minds in place.  And then we talk about education and we are less interested in getting and paying for the best people to teach and more interested in keeping our taxes low. 

And then there is the war on terror where it has seemed that money is no object.  Over a trillion dollars spent since 9/11; literally billions of dollars a day.  Mr. Lelyveld sights numerous stats on, not only the material costs, but the human costs as well.  We are so eager to get our taste of revenge that we have missed the reality of the horror we have created in those faraway lands.  And, when our brave soldiers are killed by those relatives of the ones we have killed, we condemn their revenge forgetting that our revenge is part and parcel to the same cycle.

The really incredible part of the 9/11 story, the most compelling and ironic part, is that the very same people who push for intervention in other countries to depose those evil dictators and grant everyone the pleasure of democracy, whether they want it or not, are the very people who pissed away our federal budget surplus of the late 1990's yet are today, the most vocal for  slashing spending. 

Money for guns, OK, money for unemployment assistance and jobs training, nope.

Money for bombs, you betcha, money for programs that feed children, not so fast.

Money to kill terrorists, a no brainer.  Money to educate our childrens' brains, not affordable.

Anyway, regardless if you agree with my post, take the time to read the two articles mentioned above and form your own opinions on our priorities.

Old Testament thinking

The wettest month on record for Philadelphia and its suburbs going out with a bang as hurricane Irene roared through the area. To be honest, I thought that the rain we had two weeks ago today was more of a pain than today's rain. Even though on that day I was able to deliver all my papers after a slow start while today I went home after less than half of the deliveries due to rain swollen streets, I was far more bothered by all the rain then than today.

Still, I am not so self centered to dismiss today's weather event even though it didn't seem as severe for me as for so many others. While I am certainly not the most empathetic person that I know, I do attempt to gauge events with an eye towards others perspectives, not just my own.

Which brings me to an article I read in today's Inquirer concerning climate change in which the author offers a number of reasons why the United States should be looking forward, even be excited about the effects of climate change. His points, of course, center around the economic "opportunities" that climate change will present to the US which may well enable us to enhance our geopolitical power. The last sentence of his next to last paragraph sums it up nicely.

"Rather than our doom, climate change could be the centerpiece of ensuring a second consecutive American Century."

Is it me, or does this attitude embody the ruthlessness of competition gone amok? Is it any clearer how far our selfishness can take us that someone will look for a economic silver lining in the face of world wide problems?

In essence, the author concedes that climate change is occurring (quite a departure from the typical conservative approach of denial), and that regardless of whether it is man made or not, it is irreversible, so let's embrace its effects and figure out how to make money from it!

Never mind the tens of millions of people in those countries that are already hot and dry from climate change may well die from starvation. Never mind the fact that almost a billion people on our planet still have to walk outside their homes for water and that this number will surely increase as their environs feature less potable water. Never mind that as the oceans warm, weather violence will increase thereby causing tremendous loss of life and property. Never mind even that as the climate changes, various food chains may be interrupted and thousands of species of plants and animals will go extinct. Don't worry about any of those because while "those" people, animals and plants might suffer, we just might be able to increase our wealth and stature. Sort of like being king of a shit pile, I guess.

There was a time in mankind's initial history that our unit of reference was our tribe. Everything was about our tribe, our 10, 15, 20 people. Anything and anyone outside that tribe was a threat. Gradually, our "tribe" expanded to our community. Then our state. Our country. Some people look at organizations such as NATO, the European Union, the United Nations, etc, as proof that we are seeing the beginning of the next step in increasing the size of our tribe. That, while the process is still in its infancy, we are on the road to a time when our tribe will be planet Earth.

For some, the concept of a unified earth is science fiction at best, a threat to national sovereignty at worst. Yet, I am sure that the idea of fifty united states making one great country would have seemed just as far fetched to those who lived in the "new world" of the 18th century. And I am equally certain that 15th century residents of France, England, and Spain would have deemed the idea of a unified Europe as ludicrous.

To me, the writer of that article embodies what I like to call Old Testament thinking. In this case, "Old Testament" revealed in the attitude of every man for himself although at least the author has assumed a tribal level the size of the United States. He has defined greatness as the potential economic and geopolitical status that America could achieve in a time of tremendous and dangerous environmental changes.

Too bad he can't see that history will more likely name the next century after the country or organization that expends its energy towards solving the human crises of inland water shortages, coastal flooding, food distribution shifts, etc, that climate change will bring.

Solutions 1

An amazing two mornings recently.

The first featured a full moon set in the west with an intense bright orange pre-sunrise to the east. My neck ached from all the swiveling as the sight lasted briefly.

The second was yesterday morning. A torrential downpour virtually from the moment I left my house at 3:00 AM until almost 6:00. I was trapped at the warehouse for a while as I did not dare try to load the car with the papers. The rain on the warehouse's tin roof was a constant pounding. Once I finally managed to load the car, my shirt was soaked completely through so I delivered the route topless. For the first 30 minutes on the road, each lowering of the window, even if for only a second or two brought in much wetness. Thankfully, the main downpour subsided but it was still a wet and uncomfortable delivery.

I recently watched a "panel discussion" type show in which one of the panelists claimed that America seems to have lost its enthusiasm for the future. The speaker claimed that when he was young, there were all kinds of indications that Americans were eager and ready for what was on the horizon. He specifically mentioned the space program and its promise of new understandings of the universe and our place in it. Then yesterday, strangely enough, I watched most of the movie Back to the Future, and I was reminded of how the generation of the 50's had all the great technologies of today ahead of them and, seemed to know that those advancements were coming. Seemed, in a way, to believe that they deserved them but more importantly, were going to make sure that the future was bright. They would make it so.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Then, today, there was a report that Warren Buffet is downright mad at those defending continued tax breaks for the super rich. I believed he used the word coddling, as in why are we coddling the people who are benefiting the most in these difficult economic times.

Is our selfishness the root of our problems? Have we become too concerned as to what we can get from society, what freebies we can grab, what monies we can finagle, what resources we can twist in our direction? As opposed to what we can earn. And what we can do to help others find the time, resources or opportunity to earn for themselves as well?

When the sports page discusses how much a wide receiver on a football team is worth, $40 or $50 million and when the business section reveals the salaries of the top 100 CEO's in the area and details that their compensation grew by 8% in a time when the economy was stagnant, yet at the same time teachers, firefighters and police officers are losing their jobs, what does that say about us?

When that same paper also reports that literally thousands of children are dying from starvation in Somalia and that the resources of yet another third world country are being stripped and exported to its larger neighbor, but few if any letters to the editor or pundit opinions reflect this human catastrophe, what does that say about us?

We hear from some politicians that America is the greatest nation on earth, ever. Is or was? What will we be in 10 years, 20 years? What are we striving to be? And how will we measure our greatness or lack of it? By GDP? By number of fighter bombers?

Where is the national discussion on character? On vision? Where is our plan to eradicate disease or hunger? Where are the talks that get beyond 401K's, corporate bottom lines and compensation packages, and discuss job satisfaction, living wages and equality in benefits and opportunities, not just for those like you but for all Americans, and all humans? Perhaps our most important national deficit has nothing to do with debt but more to do with our inner strengths?

The greatest nation on earth must include a nation united in its vision for the future. Or at least united in the belief that we should have a vision for the future. But the future needs to be one which we create for ourselves, one day at a time. Each person, looking in the mirror, and saying yes, I made the planet better today or no, I was selfish and only sought my own rewards but tomorrow I will do better.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Platitudes are easy to come by. You will read them here, you will encounter them in all media, you will be bombarded with them during the next 15 months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. But platitudes are all we will have, a collection of meaningless words, if we don't begin the task of identifying what it will mean to live in America in 2015, 2020.

Solutions; A Beginning

Last week I posted the thought that I should begin a series of blogs that would offer solutions to the problems we face. I also asked if, given the difficulty in making a comment on a blog, I might generate more feedback if I published an email address.

Then, of course, S&P lowered the credit rating of the United States and all hell broke loose on Wall Street and around the economic world. As I am writing these words, trading day four of the post-credit-rating-decrease world, the DOW is up over 500 points, which follows, in order, a drop of 600+ points, an increase of 400+ points and a drop of 500+ points. Literally, trillions of dollars lost, then gained, then lost again.

Perhaps then, the epitome of capitalism, the stock markets, is a good place to start when discussing solutions.

Those who know me have heard me say that I would not want to win one of those high end lotteries which can reach $100, $150 million dollars. I always say that it is too much money to have all at once and that I would prefer only a few million at most. Generally, that statement is met with disbelief. Most people react by saying that they would want as much as they could win. Some even comment that I am not being honest with myself when I say such a thing.

Perhaps I distrust myself to handle such a bonanza in a responsible way. Perhaps I know that many personality types can easily lose themselves in the excitement of having so much money and eventually become a slave to the money rather than the master.

Or perhaps I truly believe that money and material possessions are too big a distraction from what is really important in life.

Don't get me wrong, I need money just like the next guy. It provides me with this computer with which I can express myself, my home in which I am sitting, the food which my stomach is currently wondering about, clothes, entertainment, utilities, transportation, a veritable list of items that help make my life easier and help make my family more comfortable, even happier. Certainly between having no resources and having sufficient resources, I choose the latter.

But when does sufficient become unnecessary? When does having enough shoes become an excessive amount? 6 pairs? 26 pairs? 260 pairs? Is there a limit on the amount of anything one can possess upon which time any amount over that number is wasteful? Does this hold true for money as well?

I had always thought that the people who moved institutions as large and powerful as the stock market tended to be more cold and calculated than most. Less driven by emotion, more by knowledge and facts. Yet, given the wild swings of the stock market this week, I am beginning to wonder how people with advanced degrees in economics, business, finance, can sell everything on Monday, buy everything on Tuesday, sell everything again on Wednesday then buy again on Thursday? What facts and information have come to light that would generate such instability? Or is my original premise wrong? Perhaps they are not as unemotional as I think? Or perhaps they are so consumed by having money that they have lost the understanding of its purpose. That money is a means, not the end itself.

The general response to "there should be a limit on what one can earn" is that if we take away the incentive to earn an unlimited amount of money then the movers and shakers of the economy will just stop working. Anyone familiar with Ayn Rand's book The Fountainhead, has read how the world could degenerate into a place where exceptionalism is suppressed and mediocrity is rewarded.

But what some people who currently quote Ayn Rand fail to realize is that her heroes did not pursue economic gain for its sake, they sought rewards for their contributions, their superior contributions. They did not seek the rewards as an end, their love of the work in which they engaged was their main motivator; the money was secondary. They were ruthless in their pursuit of perfecting their particular craft, architecture in the case of Howard Roark. But ruthless in the pursuit of money, specifically money on Wall Street, seems to include, no, perhaps require, a pursuit that causes incredible gains for some, incredible loss for others. Does taking advantage of another person in the name of money remind us of Ayn Rand's characters or merely people who have lost their sense of humanity?

So, what is my solution? Well, it depends on the defined problem. I believe that our main problem, is that we have lost sight of money's purpose. We pursue it as an end rather than the means to sufficiently provide for our needs. That we have allowed our belief in capitalism, especially given its success in providing sufficient resources to so many people, to become a belief in whoever gets the most toys wins. Therefore, we need a paradigm shift, either about our chosen economic system, or about our own priorities of money and its importance in our lives. No easy feat to be sure.

Moving forward, I have decided to publish an email address for readers to use to contact me outside this blog. It is: jpugnetti@hotmail.com

I look forward to any and all comments.

Solutions; Prologue

It is easy to point out faults and problems, especially when it is others faults and the problems are others' doing. While I have often indicated that we, as a whole and including myself, are part of the problems of today, I also can easily fall into the trap of being negative, pointing fingers, accusing others of not caring, at best, or being purposefully misleading at worst.

So perhaps it is time to put my money where my mouth is and discuss solutions. The question is, where to begin. In some cases, solutions are not offered because a problem is not being recognized. I believe that is the case with our current form of capitalism.

In some cases, the solutions are known but the will to effect them is lacking. We know that we can't continue to run large deficits, and most people/economists believe that a combination of tax hikes and spending decreases is required. History demonstrates that this has worked in the past and was used by administrations of both parties to address growing deficits.

In still other cases, the solutions are as disparate as Americans themselves which means one man's solution is another man's root of the problem. On the surface, most people might agree that earmarks are bad for the federal budget and would be a great place to start cutting. But an expenditure that provides much needed jobs for a particular congressional district or state, an expenditure that would have occurred anyway, provides that particular representative with ammunition for ads touting how he/she has improved the lives of his constituents. For those who now have a job, his earmark is a godsend and can lead to re-election. For those living in another county or state, it is pork and should be eliminated.

But I digress.

I am tempted to provide my email address in this space. I rarely receive comments to my blogs, and, while I know my audience is small, there are some readers. My impression is that adding a comment to a blog is a tedious process so perhaps I would receive more reactions if my email address was known to those other than my direct acquaintances. Is this wise?

Here are some of the topics (in no particular order) that I could address in future blogs. For those that already contact me, please let me know your thoughts on whether publishing my email is a good idea, and if so, if it will matter anyway.

And, let me know what topics (listed here or not) you might like to see discussed from the standpoint of possible solutions as opposed to what I imagine can sometimes seem like only negative comments.


The Deficit
The National Debt
Unemployment
Gay marriage
Voter apathy
Washington politics
The next president
Education
The Environment
War
Poverty
Greed
Divorce Rates
Energy

An unexpected waterfall

Suddenly it is dark for most of my delivery route on the weekdays. I imagine that the tipping point occurred during my vacation as I was beginning to notice less daylight two weeks ago. Strange, as I initially enjoyed delivering in the dark but as the days lengthened I became used to having more light and enjoyed that even more. Does it mean I am more flexible to my surroundings or just wishy-washy in my opinion as to which I like the best.

Speaking of wishy-washy, it is clear that the recent debt debate was politically motivated. It is easy enough to review past votes on the debt ceiling to see that for the most part, Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling while Bush II was president while Democrats voted against it. The fact that our national debt doubled from 2000 to 2008 seems lost on those Republican reps who voiced outrage at the recent sharp increases, and just as equally lost on those Democrats who knew that we were spending too much money (specifically on unfunded wars) and raising too little revenue (see Bush tax cuts) during those years but now suddenly preached anarchy and economic collapse if the ceiling was not raised.

When will our politicians begin making decisions which reflect what is needed to solve America's problems? Perhaps when voters, the most wishy-washy bunch of all, begin to understand that America's greatness is not in its military power or rich Wall street hedge fund managers or even in its multi-national corporations, but in our middle class. Those earning between $40-90K per year, the people who work 30, 40, even 50 years, some for themselves, many for small businesses. The people who lack special organizations and high paid lobbyists.

The people who, if they spent even 1/10 of the time that is spent watching American Idol or sports or sitcoms or action movies, on understanding the beauty and power of our three branches of government. Perhaps if we could name the nine members of our Supreme Court, or three or even four members of the president's cabinet just as easily as we can name the members of the Jersey Shore cast or their favorite sports team then we could make decisions in the voting booth that would reflect an understanding of our place in the world and our economic future and we might elect leaders who could distill those disparate voices into policies that, while they may not match perfectly with each individual's desires, they would match closely with our collective needs.

Speaking of needs, we were treated with a waterfall over our retaining wall last Friday. Unfortunately, the waterfall was caused by a burst pipe which ran from the street to our home. With the help of our neighbors we still had water for the week, and with the help of a plumber, backhoe operator and the backs of four hardworking, middle class Americans, our pipe was replaced and the water flowed under the retaining wall rather then over it.

I have not received the bill yet, but it will certainly exceed my emergency fund. So I will be required to increase my household debt. It is a good thing that I don't have a balanced budget requirement in place or I would have had to wait, perhaps the rest of the year to have saved the money to replace the pipe. I wonder how those who are clamoring for a balanced budget amendment for the federal government will react when they have their own unexpected waterfall, either personal or federal.

Losers/Winners in the Recent Debt Ceiling Battle

A very relaxing and enjoyable vacation last week. On the way home, I felt a bit sick to my stomach. It is not uncommon for me to experience a wave of nausea as my body reacts to my brain's thinking that vacation is over, what didn't I do, and how long will it seem before next year. The feeling seems especially acute when adding in the fact that there will now be many a morning in a row when I will arise at 3:00 AM as opposed to the schedule of the past week.

Amazingly, though, my first day back, Saturday, felt pretty good. I might even go so far as to say I felt happy cruising the area with my latest audio book on the radio, the windows down and the streets deserted. No problems waking up, no excess sleepiness at work. I continue to be surprised by my reactions to life's events.

As it appears that the debt discussion talks have resulted in some type of compromise, I expect there will be many a pundit telling us who won this battle of wills between the president and GOP congressmen. I don't know the exact details of the deal, but I won't let that stop me from proclaiming my own winners/losers.

Losers.

All those involved in the discussion. From the president on down to every individual senator and congressmen, they all proved themselves to be more interested in being elected than governing. At one point during my vacation, I envisioned a class action suit in the name of all Americans who may have (and still might) find higher interest rates when borrowing in the near future. The defendants would be above mentioned elected officials. I also thought that perhaps a recallthemall.com (recall them all) website might be in order to begin a nationwide recall/impeachment of the lot.

Every concerned citizen in America. Rather than a serious debate about the problems facing us, we were left with one finger-pointing-diatribe after another. By "walking out" of discussions rather than working through differences. By grandstanding, by sound bites designed to scare rather than educate, by our elected officials doing everything to distance themselves from blame but not nearly enough to create a plan to address our problems.

Every apathetic citizen in America. As opposed to those described above, and despite the seriousness of the past month's debt ceiling/deficit debate, there were still many people who did not follow the progress (or lack of it). They had given up on our Washington representatives, given up on our political system sometime in the past. It is a shame that they don't realize that giving up, saying that one vote doesn't matter, proclaiming that "they are all the same", is as significant a factor in the current state of politics as the extremism that seems to have become the only opinions being expressed in our media. Apathy is not a pretty thing.

Our great system of governance. Perhaps the biggest loser of all. For all the talk about how awesome our founding fathers were in designing our system with its three branches of government, we find ourselves, amazingly, considering the horrible instances of the past that chipped away at our trust of government (see Watergate, run-up to the Iraq War, abuse of power, scandals, etc), facing a new low in respect by our citizens for our leaders. Approval ratings are in the dumper for everyone involved, and expectations that a real plan will emerge from all this jabbering are practically nill.

Winners?

Sorry, I can't think of any.

What is truly disconcerting is that for all the whining and complaining and unhappiness we express at our elected leaders, we are barely achieving a 50% turnout for the big elections, 33%, or less for the rest. We are getting the government we deserve by allowing small blocks of voters with specific agendas choose representatives with limited perspectives on how to solve problems. With votes based on litmus tests, whether the test be about abortion or war or gay marriage or social security, we elect people who do not have the information, or desire, to extend their knowledge to the vast array of issues facing America today. So they vote as a block as their party dictates. No vision.

But then again, perhaps they only reflect their constituents.

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.